Where is Liberty and freedom? Will it someday become extinct?

[godnotgod]

Imprisonment - Wikipedia

As I said, no one can take away your freedom. You may be imprisoned, beaten, tortured, and killed, but if you are free, no one can take that away from you. Freedom is beyond the grave. I do not mean free in the physical sense, but in the spiritual sense. If your rights are taken away via imprisonment, you cannot physically do things you previously did. But if you are free, there is nothing anyone can get hold of to make you un-free.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You gave nothing but your personal opinions on a plethora of issues.

I gave you my perspective on two religions to point out how similar they are. Yes, that's an opinion. I think it's also a fact, but since I didn't try to support any claim, I don't mind your choice of language

Quote scripture and verse from the NT, or give historical references for your accusations.

Irrelevant.

There is no reason for me to present scripture from either the Bible or Qur'an. I've never opened the Qur'an. but I think I am still qualified to describe what I have seen elsewhere. Both religions are atheophic and homophobic, for example. Do you need help finding the biblical scripture that supports that?

• [1] "The fool says in his heart,'There is no God.' They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good" - Psalm 14:
  
• [2] "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, and all and the enemy of a good god." - Revelation 21:8
• [3] "Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?"- 2 Corinthians 6:14
• [4] "Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ." - 1 John 2:22
• [5] "Whoever is not with me is against me" - Luke 11:23
• [6] “Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” - 1 Timothy 5:8

What do you see there? I see unbelievers being described as lying, corrupt, vile, wicked, abominable, godless vessels of darkness in the service of evil, not one of whom does any good, appropriately shunned, and all of whom are fit to be burned alive forever as enemies of a good god, worse than deadbeats unwilling to provide for their families, and the moral equivalent of murderers and whoremongers.

Who else depicts atheists like that? Not the Hindus. Not the Buddhists. Not thr Baha'i. Not the Jains. Just Christians and Muslims to my knowledge - perhaps some Jews.

Did you need more scripture confirming that Jehovah is angry and jealous, or prudish just like Allah? I don't intend to produce them. I'm content to make the unsupported claim, which I presume that many can see accurately describes both religions and reveals their stark similarities.

I also don't intend to provide Muslim scripture to defend my comparison between it and Christianity. It's also irrelevant.

Your opinions mean nothing, and false opinions can be dismissed with the same authority by true opinions.

I think that the opinions expressed in this discussion are compelling. It's up to others to decide what value they ascribe to these opinions.

I gave specifics, especially re sex and homosexuality in the Church, which contradicts in totality your opinion that Christians want control over those issues for everyone, you ignored that.

I only need look at the news to know how Christianity is treating LGBT issues. As homosexuals how they perceive the church - friend or foe.

Further, I pointed out to you that the Republic was founded on the concept of no government religion, and this founding concept was by Christians, you ignored that, preferring to hold on to your cherished idea that Christians want a theocracy, never did, don't.

That's not a Christian concept. The Christian model of government is theocratic, and they have already been admitted into government in large number, where they are busy reforming government in a more theocratic manner. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos want to divert the tax dollars of non-Christians and Christians alike to promoting Christianity through voucher schools. And the conservatives are champing at the bit to gain sufficient majorities in the Supreme Court to overturn Roe and Obergfell.

If you're unaware of all of this, it's because you choose to be. Creeping theocracy in America, like creeping fascism and creeping intellectual and moral decadence, is a problem. Look at what the white evangelicals have become. They support the likes of Trump and Roy Moore because they hope candidates like that will promote white, Christian America.

If your purpose is to hurl empty slurs, then have me scuttle to prove them wrong, it ain't happening.

I have hurled no slurs. You have, however.

Either present specific points with supporting evidence, or this conversation is best ended.

I've made my case. Can you rebut it, or are you just sending me to the Bible as a distraction?

I notice that you continue to evade questions, such as why you didn't address my argument the first time, but had to request the link to go back and do so when called on it, and to refuse to acknowledge the rendering argument.

No problem. I assume that you would have addressed those if you thought that you had a good response.

 

[shmogie]

Don't know where you picked up that we 'allow sharia'.
Any person can arrest any person who commits, or is suspected of committing an Indictable offence. So if a group of Muslims see an indictable offence (one that can be tried in a Crown Court) then they can arrest the offence. It's nothing to do with 'sharia'.


I don't think anything.......... I can only guess at what your States do, but I have read that didn't States have differing legislation.


You're repeating yourself.......... you've already written that all your States have the same systems of law.


Interesting...................


Because you don't understand our laws here.
Any person can arrest an indictable offence here...... we arrest OFFENCES. You think that's clever talk because you don't know our law. Even if a child might commit an indictable offence here, a child under the age of criminal responsibility, any person can detain that child and call the police....... why? because we don't detain people, we detain OFFENCES!

It's not clever talk..... it's professional exactness, which you don't understand.


You're repeating yourself.


Here you say that you cannot hold suspects.............


...and here you say that you can!
And you call my talk clever.


Our police are allowed to invite anybody to come and speak with them. Anybody is allowed to help police with their inquiries. And if the police arrest a suspect who then wants to give them informations, then they might, just might, tell the media about it.


Bulldust.
We watch 'Bait Car' filmed in two or three different States, and see it all.
You're havin' a laugh.......


Anybody here can have their dog put down if they wish, that's true, but you mention 'in your religion' when talking to me.
And we notice on your animal cruelty channel how many times dogs are found chained up in back-yards for so long that the chains have become embedded in their necks. British Law bans unsupervised traces or running traces anywhere.

You're waffling....


Huh? So far all the defendants who have had their cases dropped have been English and White.
Your agenda is flashing like a beacon now.


Is that how they got rid of him?
And what he told you about our criminal law was bunkum, really.

Of course we also have citizens arrests as well. You don't understand what legal entrapment is., A bait can isn't entrapment, nor is a female officer dressed up as a prostitute, nore, nor is buying drugs from a dealer. ENTRAPMENT exists when the specific idea to commit a crime comes from the police. A female police officer posing as a prostitute entraps when she says to a guy walking by "hey, you want to party" ? It is NOT entrapment if he walks up to her and says "hey girl, want to party?". A car sitting along side the street with the keys in it isn';t entrapment if a buffoon decides to steal it. It could only be entrapment if a cop says hey, you could get a car easily, it has the keys in it.

Your police have a specified number of hours where they can take someone into custody, and then try and make their case. If they can't, they must release before the expiration of that time.

We can't do that, we must have a prima facie case based upon probable cause before we take anybody into custody.

We can't arrest them with a period of time to curry around trying to make our case. Probable cause must exist first.

I suggest you check with your home office regarding sharia courts in your country, they exist there, not here

 

[shmogie]

Don't know where you picked up that we 'allow sharia'.
Any person can arrest any person who commits, or is suspected of committing an Indictable offence. So if a group of Muslims see an indictable offence (one that can be tried in a Crown Court) then they can arrest the offence. It's nothing to do with 'sharia'.


I don't think anything.......... I can only guess at what your States do, but I have read that didn't States have differing legislation.


You're repeating yourself.......... you've already written that all your States have the same systems of law.


Interesting...................


Because you don't understand our laws here.
Any person can arrest an indictable offence here...... we arrest OFFENCES. You think that's clever talk because you don't know our law. Even if a child might commit an indictable offence here, a child under the age of criminal responsibility, any person can detain that child and call the police....... why? because we don't detain people, we detain OFFENCES!

It's not clever talk..... it's professional exactness, which you don't understand.


You're repeating yourself.


Here you say that you cannot hold suspects.............


...and here you say that you can!
And you call my talk clever.


Our police are allowed to invite anybody to come and speak with them. Anybody is allowed to help police with their inquiries. And if the police arrest a suspect who then wants to give them informations, then they might, just might, tell the media about it.


Bulldust.
We watch 'Bait Car' filmed in two or three different States, and see it all.
You're havin' a laugh.......


Anybody here can have their dog put down if they wish, that's true, but you mention 'in your religion' when talking to me.
And we notice on your animal cruelty channel how many times dogs are found chained up in back-yards for so long that the chains have become embedded in their necks. British Law bans unsupervised traces or running traces anywhere.

You're waffling....


Huh? So far all the defendants who have had their cases dropped have been English and White.
Your agenda is flashing like a beacon now.


Is that how they got rid of him?
And what he told you about our criminal law was bunkum, really.

No.........I think you are just not fully aware

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

As I said, no one can take away your freedom. You may be imprisoned, beaten, tortured, and killed, but if you are free, no one can take that away from you. Freedom is beyond the grave. I do not mean free in the physical sense, but in the spiritual sense. If your rights are taken away via imprisonment, you cannot physically do things you previously did. But if you are free, there is nothing anyone can get hold of to make you un-free.

Oh. The good old "if this clearly defined word means something other than what it means" argument

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Never said that, but I have compared several translations.

Uh-huh.

 

[godnotgod]

Oh. The good old "if this clearly defined word means something other than what it means" argument

What more could you possibly ask for?

 

[icehorse]

Uh-huh.

Be brave enough to be clear.

 

[oldbadger]

Of course we also have citizens arrests as well. You don't understand what legal entrapment is., A bait can isn't entrapment,

Please don't try and tell me what provocation is.
A car with motor running and a door open is an outright provocation.
And please don't wander off, telling all about bait-women...... but this all sucks imo.

Your police have a specified number of hours where they can take someone into custody, and then try and make their case. If they can't, they must release before the expiration of that time.

We can't do that, we must have a prima facie case based upon probable cause before we take anybody into custody.

It's no good now...... you posted that our legal system is poor (in human rights?) when compared to yours and pointed out that you have a degree which included UK law studies. You then show clearly that you didn't have the first clue about UK legal systems, didn't even know that we have a few of 'em here. Then you wanted to tell me that you went on a 26 week course for hard-nuts and that you Directed something, and THEN you started bickering about Muslims mistreating their dogs, or holding (public) sharia courts........
..... you can't impress me now.

We can't arrest them with a period of time to curry around trying to make our case. Probable cause must exist first.

Oh please !!!!!!!
We watch videos here filmed by very brave young kids, showing US officers taking careful aim and shooting folks dead in the back as they run away.

Which part of that do you think can possibly show your law enforcement to be more reasonable than the different UK legal systems.

I suggest you check with your home office regarding sharia courts in your country, they exist there, not here

The usual practice on RF is to show evidence for claims, true?
Now please show evidence of any sharia courts in the UK which are controlling the public in any area.

Of course there are some Jewish, Bahai, Muslim, Christian courts which control some of those believers here, but they are not authorised courts trying criminal cases. They are private courts, not much different from club committees really.

So it looks like your posts are turning into an Islamophobic rant, really.

A few posts back I told you that quality detectives need to have a mind-set firmly in professional exactness, a term which you clearly thought was just clever-talk. I don't think that you'll ever get it, but for the elimination of bigotry and prejudices the operative has to 'fall into' a mental state which tries to effect the same attitudes and reactions all the time, regardless of who is the focus of attention or what the circumstances might be. This is extremely hard, but if you're an Islamphobe or prejudiced in any other ways then you would never have the clear record or the highest success rates in the work.

The most successful detectives are ones who try to eliminate prejudice, and I could show that in any number of ways, but would you remember.... would you learn from it?

 

[oldbadger]

No.........I think you are just not fully aware

Not fully aware..,.,..! ( *sniffs* )

Now come on.......... identify any sharia court in the UK which is involved with the Public, or Criminal cases.

Jews, Christians, Muslims, Bahais and many others hold their own court systems for internal matters, rather like many clubs do here, but if this is how you're trying to show me that the UK values and freedoms are slipping away then all I can see is a heap of bigotry ....................

 

[Poseidon Soter]

Again, even given a sanitized translation, as one reads thru the book it's clear that Allah has concluded that it is the Christians and the Jews who have "gone astray".

I'm not sure what you mean by 'a sanitised translation' (which you've mentioned a couple times now).

If what you say above were the case, why does Allah mention Jews, Christians and Sabians with 'those who believe' as people who will be rewarded (and upon whom there will be no fear nor will they grieve)?

Isn't the OBVIOUS answer that in the first Suran - the 5-times-a-day prayer - the Quran declares that Allah is forever angry with Christians and Jews?

The first chapter of the Koran begins:

In the Name of Allah, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful (first verse), monikers which are repeated again in the third verse.

Far from mentioning anger, this chapter is about how merciful Allah is.

As for "forever', if you ask them (as I have many times), Muslims will tell you that the Quran is perfect, clear, unalterable and TIMELESS. If Allah is angry, he's angry forever - it's in the friggin' book.

Sure Allah gets angry. But He is also the Most Forgiving, Most Merciful.

If you disagree, then what perspective do you think one is supposed to take when reading the Quran?

A more balanced, nuanced one.

 

[Poseidon Soter]

The imam tells the majority illiterate ones what their books say. The NT is clear, as is the koran and hadith. I don´t understand their faith, I understand what the prophet wrote as from their god. If you read a sura in the koran, that says infidels should be beheaded, are you claiming you are incapable of understanding what is written and need a muslims interpretation ? How about in the hadith when ol mo is riding by on his horse, with his sword and covered in blood, when asked where he has been, he says killing infidels. You need a interpreter to tell you what this alleged eyewitness account means ?

Allah does not say that you should go about killing every infidel you see. There is a difference between how one should act on the battlefield and how one should act when not. The Koran contains guidance on both, and this is backed up by the Hadith.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As I said, no one can take away your freedom. You may be imprisoned, beaten, tortured, and killed, but if you are free, no one can take that away from you. Freedom is beyond the grave. I do not mean free in the physical sense, but in the spiritual sense. If your rights are taken away via imprisonment, you cannot physically do things you previously did. But if you are free, there is nothing anyone can get hold of to make you un-free.

Seems you're using the word "freedom" in a way that doesn't bear much resemblance to how I understand the term... or how I’ve ever heard anyone besides you use it.

 

[icehorse]

If what you say above were the case, why does Allah mention Jews, Christians and Sabians with 'those who believe' as people who will be rewarded (and upon whom there will be no fear nor will they grieve)?

Well if you want to point out the book's many inconsistencies and imperfections, that really changes the nature of the conversation. Muslims tell me (and the book itself confirms), that we must treat the Quran as perfect, unalterable, clear, and timeless. So where are you coming from, perfect? or flawed?

The first chapter of the Koran begins:

In the Name of Allah, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful (first verse), monikers which are repeated again in the third verse.

I specifically called out the 7th verse in the first Surah - why would you stop before getting to the 7th verse, the first 6 verses are very short?

Sure Allah gets angry. But He is also the Most Forgiving, Most Merciful.

Again with inconsistencies in the book. BTW, repeated and perpetual burning off of a person's skin has never struck me as particularly "forgiving", can you walk me through how that works? (rhetorical)

A more balanced, nuanced one.

So you're saying that even though the book declares itself to be clear, you know better?

 

[Poseidon Soter]

Well if you want to point out the book's many inconsistencies and imperfections, that really changes the nature of the conversation.

Different parts of the Koran relate to different aspects of a complex problem (life, etc.).

Muslims tell me (and the book itself confirms), that we must treat the Quran as perfect, unalterable, clear, and timeless. So where are you coming from, perfect? or flawed?

I believe the Koran was of and for its time.

I specifically called out the 7th verse in the first Surah - why would you stop before getting to the 7th verse, the first 6 verses are very short?

The first verses are an introduction to the rest of the chapter. They also set the tone.

BTW, repeated and perpetual burning off of a person's skin has never struck me as particularly "forgiving", can you walk me through how that works? (rhetorical)

Some things Allah won't forgive.

So you're saying that even though the book declares itself to be clear, you know better?

Yup.

 

[icehorse]

@Poseidon Soter - It seems we're agreed that the Quran is NOT perfect, clear, or easy to understand?

The first verses are an introduction to the rest of the chapter. They also set the tone.

I have heard many "Islamic Scholars" go through various forms of mental gymnastics to squeeze positive messages out of the book. (BTW, "Christian Scholars" are in a very similar boat.)

The problem I have with this orientation is that it doesn't scale well. For 1400 years, these attempts to "properly interpret" the scripture have led to millions of murders, endless sectarian strife, and the mostly regressive state of affairs we see throughout the Muslim world today.

So by all means, do cognitive backflips and satisfy yourself that the Quran is all cherries and rainbows, but the reality is that untrained Imams indoctrinate poorly schooled Muslims (by the hundreds of millions). Far too often - around the world - Muslims believe WHAT THE WORDS SAY. This makes sense. If you're not a scholar with an agenda, and you read the words in the most simple and natural way. You'll walk away with a confusing, supremacist, misogynistic, anti-semitic, anti-secular, homophobic, entitled, and combative view of the world.

For 1400 hundred years Muslims have had to fight this massive cognitive dissonance, and it's hardly surprising that Islam's results have been so bloody, regressive, and dubious.

 

[shmogie]

Not fully aware..,.,..! ( *sniffs* )

Now come on.......... identify any sharia court in the UK which is involved with the Public, or Criminal cases.

Jews, Christians, Muslims, Bahais and many others hold their own court systems for internal matters, rather like many clubs do here, but if this is how you're trying to show me that the UK values and freedoms are slipping away then all I can see is a heap of bigotry ....................

I am not saying anything about UK values or freedoms. Bigotry, how is that. I simply stated that sharia courts have been authorized to deal with things that would been authorized that here would be dealt with in civil court, child custody, alimony, etc. I have also heard of, but I don't know if it is true, uniformed sharia compliance officers in parts of London, enforcing that law on practitioners of the religion of peace. I also read an article on a non muslim being told by one of these officers not to walk her dog on the public streets in one of these neighborhoods because it was "offensive", true ?Just reporting what I read. If it works for you, then go for it.

Your reference to bigotry is interesting.How you could extrapolate that from what I posted, I haven;'t a clue.

 

[shmogie]

Please don't try and tell me what provocation is.
A car with motor running and a door open is an outright provocation.
And please don't wander off, telling all about bait-women...... but this all sucks imo.


It's no good now...... you posted that our legal system is poor (in human rights?) when compared to yours and pointed out that you have a degree which included UK law studies. You then show clearly that you didn't have the first clue about UK legal systems, didn't even know that we have a few of 'em here. Then you wanted to tell me that you went on a 26 week course for hard-nuts and that you Directed something, and THEN you started bickering about Muslims mistreating their dogs, or holding (public) sharia courts........
..... you can't impress me now.


Oh please !!!!!!!
We watch videos here filmed by very brave young kids, showing US officers taking careful aim and shooting folks dead in the back as they run away.

Which part of that do you think can possibly show your law enforcement to be more reasonable than the different UK legal systems.


The usual practice on RF is to show evidence for claims, true?
Now please show evidence of any sharia courts in the UK which are controlling the public in any area.

Of course there are some Jewish, Bahai, Muslim, Christian courts which control some of those believers here, but they are not authorised courts trying criminal cases. They are private courts, not much different from club committees really.

So it looks like your posts are turning into an Islamophobic rant, really.

A few posts back I told you that quality detectives need to have a mind-set firmly in professional exactness, a term which you clearly thought was just clever-talk. I don't think that you'll ever get it, but for the elimination of bigotry and prejudices the operative has to 'fall into' a mental state which tries to effect the same attitudes and reactions all the time, regardless of who is the focus of attention or what the circumstances might be. This is extremely hard, but if you're an Islamphobe or prejudiced in any other ways then you would never have the clear record or the highest success rates in the work.

The most successful detectives are ones who try to eliminate prejudice, and I could show that in any number of ways, but would you remember.... would you learn from it?

You abandoned the legal term entrapment and it's definition, to replace it with the not legal term "provocation". Isn't a courier carry a large amount of money a provocation to someone who wants to steal it ?

I was a real detective, investigating real crime, for many years. NOT a store guard that you seem to refer to as a detective.

Neither I or the 42 person law enforcement agency I managed for 17 years ever had a complaint filed for racial discrimination or excessive force. The ratio of minorities and women in my dept. to males and whites far exceeded the ration in the community we served.

I was a University lecturer and had folk from your country attend my lectures. I did attend a basic academy many years ago, and many specialized ones since.

In exchanges with you in the past I have noticed your tendency to wander off topic in an accusatory fashion, and you are doing it again, here.

Yes, you saw a video of a police officer shooting a black man in the back, disgusting, I agree. That shooter is now serving a life sentence for his crime, and that doesn't mean 10 or 15 years like in your country, it means he can't even be considered for parole till he has served 35 years. He may have been given, I am not sure, the sentence of life without the possibility of parole, that means the rest of his life. I expect you now to tell me how cruel these sentences are. In my view, he should be executed.

We also had a case of a black muslim officer of Somali parents kill an unarmed white woman, what say ye ?

You alluded to an entire dept. in your country covering up numerous rapes. We haven't had anything like that here.

We have had some departments with corruption problems, like Chicago in the 1920's, or Denver in the late 1940's, but nothing on any scale for a long, long time. New Orleans has been a chronic problem because of very poor leadership, and poor training. Louisiana is a very poor state, and the culture of the city is very different from the rest of the country. Uniform standards have improved that Dept.

You need to keep in mind that the USA has a population of 350+ million people. Policing this huge population are state, county, and city police forces, many of them, with many officers. These tens of thousands go about their jobs professionally and responsibly every day, a very, very tiny percentage become bad apples, and they are very quickly weeded out.

It seems to me that you have a burning desire to turn this conversation a series of accusations about me, re being an "islamaphobe". First a phobia is an unnatural fear of something. I have no fear of muslims. Second, I think because your governments took in many millions of them for seemingly good reasons, and they are now affecting traditional British culture, you are hyper defensive of your system. I have said nothing that would lead you to any such conclusion. The problem is yours, not mine. It's your country, your laws, your population. Knock yourself out with multiculturalism if you choose, it is your choice.

We are done now. You have reached the point you always seem to reach, ad hominems and personal accusations. I shan't respond to you any further. Have a good day.

Havea good day.

 

[shmogie]

Allah does not say that you should go about killing every infidel you see. There is a difference between how one should act on the battlefield and how one should act when not. The Koran contains guidance on both, and this is backed up by the Hadith.

How about in law ? What about taxation for non believers ? Or death for those on the battlefield who wouldn't convert ? The hadith tells of ol' mo personally killing one of these very guilty people. Why were there battlefields in the first place ? Who were, always, the aggressors ? Have you ever read what the muslims did to the Sikhs because they wouldn't convert ? Boiled in oil, roasted over open fires, tortured for long periods, ripped into pieces while still alive. All authorized by the koran, because they weren't "the people of the Book" who could only be beheaded. Why were they in India in the first place ?

 

[shmogie]

I gave you my perspective on two religions to point out how similar they are. Yes, that's an opinion. I think it's also a fact, but since I didn't try to support any claim, I don't mind your choice of language



Irrelevant.

There is no reason for me to present scripture from either the Bible or Qur'an. I've never opened the Qur'an. but I think I am still qualified to describe what I have seen elsewhere. Both religions are atheophic and homophobic, for example. Do you need help finding the biblical scripture that supports that?

• [1] "The fool says in his heart,'There is no God.' They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good" - Psalm 14:
  
• [2] "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, and all and the enemy of a good god." - Revelation 21:8
• [3] "Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?"- 2 Corinthians 6:14
• [4] "Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ." - 1 John 2:22
• [5] "Whoever is not with me is against me" - Luke 11:23
• [6] “Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” - 1 Timothy 5:8

What do you see there? I see unbelievers being described as lying, corrupt, vile, wicked, abominable, godless vessels of darkness in the service of evil, not one of whom does any good, appropriately shunned, and all of whom are fit to be burned alive forever as enemies of a good god, worse than deadbeats unwilling to provide for their families, and the moral equivalent of murderers and whoremongers.

Who else depicts atheists like that? Not the Hindus. Not the Buddhists. Not thr Baha'i. Not the Jains. Just Christians and Muslims to my knowledge - perhaps some Jews.

Did you need more scripture confirming that Jehovah is angry and jealous, or prudish just like Allah? I don't intend to produce them. I'm content to make the unsupported claim, which I presume that many can see accurately describes both religions and reveals their stark similarities.

I also don't intend to provide Muslim scripture to defend my comparison between it and Christianity. It's also irrelevant.



I think that the opinions expressed in this discussion are compelling. It's up to others to decide what value they ascribe to these opinions.



I only need look at the news to know how Christianity is treating LGBT issues. As homosexuals how they perceive the church - friend or foe.



That's not a Christian concept. The Christian model of government is theocratic, and they have already been admitted into government in large number, where they are busy reforming government in a more theocratic manner. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos want to divert the tax dollars of non-Christians and Christians alike to promoting Christianity through voucher schools. And the conservatives are champing at the bit to gain sufficient majorities in the Supreme Court to overturn Roe and Obergfell.

If you're unaware of all of this, it's because you choose to be. Creeping theocracy in America, like creeping fascism and creeping intellectual and moral decadence, is a problem. Look at what the white evangelicals have become. They support the likes of Trump and Roy Moore because they hope candidates like that will promote white, Christian America.



I have hurled no slurs. You have, however.



I've made my case. Can you rebut it, or are you just sending me to the Bible as a distraction?

I notice that you continue to evade questions, such as why you didn't address my argument the first time, but had to request the link to go back and do so when called on it, and to refuse to acknowledge the rendering argument.

No problem. I assume that you would have addressed those if you thought that you had a good response.

Your ¨argument¨ the first time was based solely on your person perceptions and thought. I simply rebutted them with the same. Except for being monotheistic, and certain similarities regarding the spiritual world, your opinions about similarity are simply wrong opinions.


You actually have made some specific, cogent points here, without the emotional hyperbole, so I will address them.

First, you need to be reminded, once again, that the Torah, the Old Testament, The First Covenant, was written about and for a specific people, in a specific place, in a specific time. None were Christians. Israel under the Torah WAS a Theocracy, but that all ended in 33 AD. There are no Christian writings promoting a Theocracy, although one is expected after time ends. So, your accusation is false. People come up with false ideaś all the time, but I don´t paint with such a broad brush as you. There are atheists who promote the murder of all in nursing homes, I don´t attribute that stupidity to all atheists. The handbook for Christian belief, and moral law, never even mentions the idea.

1, Psalms 14. I will assume you know nothing about the Christian concept of depravity. We ALL are corrupt, our deeds aren´t good. This is based on the standard of God for humanity in the beginning. Christians are no better in this regard than anyone else. Yes, in the end those who say there is no God will realize for themselves what fools they were. 2, Revelation 21, yep all those who habitually practice these things, who are unrepentant will ultimately be destroyed. There will no longer be a place for these deeds or for those who love doing them. Even you must realize life without both will be better. 3, 2nd Corinthians, do not be yoked together with unbelievers. This is about marriage. Those sinful beings covered by Christs righteous are righteous, those sinful beings who choose not to be thus covered are not righteous. Only God is righteous, and he imputes it to one who chooses to have it. One who does so is in the light, one who does not is in the dark. 4, 1st John, though written for the Jews of the day who denied that Christ was the Messiah (Gr. Christ) written in the Torah, it is a fact. Those who say he isn´t are telling a lie, then or now. 5, Luke. He was speaking of the Jews at the time, those who did not accept his teachings, hated him, his followers and his teachings. It will be the same at the end 6, 1st Timothy, written to Christians for Christians. He was speaking of the Christian obligation to provide for family, and they are worse than the unbeliever who does the same because they have freely taken on the obligation to do so.

What you choose to see in these verses isn there

I don´t care much about any other religions view on most anything. If their followers are happy and fulfilled they are welcome to their beliefs, there beliefs are no threat in any way to me.

I have already told you about what the NT has to say about homosexuality. If they feel that Christians are their enemy it is because of ignorant people like you spewing lies and stoking the fires of hate.

The people still rule in a Representative Republic, and if their representatives select Supreme court justices who reflect the values of their constituents, I will tell you exactly what you would tell me if our roles were reversed, get over it.

I didn´t support Trump, and Moore was a terrible candidate, It was Conservatives and Christians who denied him where any other Republican, including the incumbent Republican, would have won hands down.

I see, so you support the idea that parents should not have a say in the education of their children, and that their tax money should be used to lock their kids into decrepit schools, with no discipline, with very poor teachers, rife with bullying and crime, with very very low test scores and graduates, created in the most part by those who share your philosophy and values and in the grip of the unions. You sure care about the kids. Just like those democrat politicians who take billions and billions and billions of dollars to improve inner city neighborhoods, only they are now worse.

I think poor parents should have the right to take the money allocated for the education of their child and apply it as they choose for the education of their kid at an academic excellent, high test score high graduate school of their choice.

Who wants to help the poor, anyway ? Is it because you have such a hard on for Christianity that you are willing to toss these kids aside rather than think they might use this money at a Christian school ?

There is no ¨creeping Christianity¨ that is a figment of your paranoia and hate.