Religion

[AngelKitty]

I, personally, have difficulty reconciling someone claiming to be a Christian but continuing in something that is Biblically sinful. It appears, to me, to be contrary to the message of scripture.

 

Depends on what kind of Christianity you follow and whether you hold the canonical Gospels to be the only true Gospels, since there are all kinds of Christian scriptures out there that were rejected for canonization at the Council of Nicea. Oh the subject of Christianity and Witchcraft, I went googling and this is one of the first things I found. This really interests me, as Gnosticism always has (I'm trying to learn more about it at the moment).

 

Not all Christian witches are Gnostics, though - some Christian witches blend Pagan beliefs with Christian ones, like this person. I especially liked this paragraph:

 

When I began this path I split God into male and female. As time grew I found that God will always be a Father figure to me. But I needed that female aspect to comfort me like a mother would. So what i believe in is: God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Female Holy Spirit. I tend to call God the Father, and Jesus the Son : Lord… and the Female Holy Spirit: Lady.

[ShinyTomato]

The condemnation may be in the same parts of the law, but eating shellfish didn't bear the penalty of death, did it?

 

Disobeying your parents did. So did perjury and contempt of court. So did breaking the Sabbath.

 

However, the only thing that carried the death penalty was put forth was mediumship, or contacting the dead. (Yidde'oni)

 

There are many many forms of witchcraft that never go near communication with the dead -- which is the only thing condemned.

 

Biblically, much of what modern witches practise -- ritual circles, laying on of hands, prayer, herbalism ritual or otherwise, is not condemned.

[AwesoMan30000]

My Religions: Catholic and Muslim

[~Kat~]

Radicals to not represent an entire religion, culture of people, or country.

 

That is all I can trust myself to say on this.

That is what I am talking about, is the radicals and the terrorists, not the good people of the Islamic faith. Some of you see what you only want to see.

 

Some people need to look at what the topic I put on is, so here it is again below. Notice the words TALIBAN, these are terrorists. We have terrorists right here in the USA. Look what happened 9/11, lest we forget. They were here in the USA already. That is why I said send them back to where they came from, as we do not know the good people from the bad ones until they strike us from within our own country, then it is to late.

 

So to all of you I have offended, unless you are a terrorist, I do not mean any of you who are that faith.

 

 

 

 

Taliban: Afghanistan Attack Linked To Anti-Islam Film

 

KABUL, Sept 15 (Reuters) - Afghanistan's Taliban claimed responsibility on Saturday for an attack on a base which U.S. officials said killed two American Marines, saying it was in response to a film that insults the Prophet Mohammad.

 

Camp Bastion, in southern Helmand province, came under mortar, rocket-propelled grenade and small arms fire late on Friday in an attack in which several servicemen were wounded.

 

"The aim of this attack was revenge against Americans for the anti-Prophet movie," said Taliban spokesman Qari Yousuf.

 

U.S. President Barack Obama has vowed to "stand fast" against violence which has spread since the amateurish film of obscure origin triggered an attack on the U.S. consulate in the Libyan city of Benghazi that killed the ambassador and three other Americans on Sept. 11, the eleventh anniversary of the al Qaeda attacks on the United States.

 

Britain's Prince Harry was at Camp Bastion at the time of Friday's attack, but was unharmed.

 

Earlier this week, the Afghan Taliban said they were doing everything in their power to either kill or kidnap Queen Elizabeth's grandson in what they dubbed their "Harry Operations."

 

"Prince Harry was never in any danger," Martyn Crighton, a spokesman for the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), said, adding that it would investigate whether his presence on the base had motivated the attack.

 

Britain's Sky News said a Taliban commander had told the broadcaster that Prince Harry was main target of the attack. Sky's Kabul correspondent said she checked with a Taliban spokesman, who said the attack on Bastion was indeed in revenge for the Islam film, but that Bastion was chosen as the target because Prince Harry was there.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/15/t...26pLid%3D205973

 

These people are barbaric PERIOD. They also think the solution is to kill, they do not know what peace is. Yep, got to love their religion, not.

 

When you have a religion that requires total submission, and death is the price you pay for not submitting, there will never be peace. Some people will not ever, ever submit. Therefore, there will never be peace where there is Islam. Foolish to think we could ever bring them peace, they live and die by the sword and if they don’t have a foreign enemy to kill, they turn on each other. “Give me liberty or give me death", someone once said.

 

The real alarm is that an Islamic mob frenzy occurred outside our embassy in London. Given the invasion of Muslims into western European nations over the past couple of decades has created these immigrant Imans to threaten and in some cases act with violence upon any real or perceived offense to their prophet. Remember the native Dutch politician that was murdered about five years ago because he was gay? He was gunned down in his own country by an Islamic immigrant. How many acts of terror occurred or have been thwarted solely by Islamofascists that have their "soft invasions" into Western Europe and the United States? Just wait until these protests and riots by Muslims start happening in America!!! This is a direct confrontation between Islamic religious fanaticism(a foreign concept to our nation) meets American freedom of speech with our traditions, values, and the freedom we had through September 10th, 2001. With the subtle growth of Islam in America, we need to seriously ask ourselves how long will it be before this foreign religion enacts the same anti-American mayhem on our shores?!!!! We've already had 9/11,The Fort Hood murderer, the Times Square Pakastani plot to bomb Times Square. Yet, we're forced to "celebrate diversity" at the expense of our freedom and fleeting way of life. America needs to IMMEDIATELY stop foreign aid to these countries. Let them live with their tyrants and various factions of Islam. Billions for AMERICANS NOT FOREIGNERS! Our government needs to send them all back from where they came from.

 

I think common sense would dictate that the Prince should not be in combat, especially in an area of complete nutcases. His presence further endangers our troops due to the fact that the radical nuts will want to try and kidnap or kill the Prince. I admire his bravery and sense of duty, but it comes at too high a price to the other troops that he is serving with. Because he is royalty, I do not think he should be in danger this way either.

[philpot123]

Disobeying your parents did. So did perjury and contempt of court. So did breaking the Sabbath.

 

However, the only thing that carried the death penalty was put forth was mediumship, or contacting the dead. (Yidde'oni)

 

There are many many forms of witchcraft that never go near communication with the dead -- which is the only thing condemned.

 

Biblically, much of what modern witches practise -- ritual circles, laying on of hands, prayer, herbalism ritual or otherwise, is not condemned.

How often do you think the "disobeying your parents" death penalty was used? Serious question, I'm sure you've done more study on it than I have. But considering it would have to be the parent turning the child in, I can't see many parents saying "Oooohhh little Jimmy talked back to his momma! It's time for stoning." My picture of the "spirit of the law," if you will, in that passage is an incredibly rebellious child whose behavior was beyond being corrected. I could be wrong, but I have a very hard time imagining parents sending their children to be stoned in droves because they disobeyed once.

 

Do you mean this passage?

Leviticus 20:27 "A man or woman who is a medium or spiritist among you must be put to death. You are to stone them; their blood will be on their own heads."

 

What about the go-to Exodus passage, you shall not suffer a witch/sorceress to live? Is the word used there referring to contacting the dead as well?

 

 

Also, this goes back to my belief in a sort of covenant theology. The idea that something that bore a death penalty or a fine or some such thing was a moral statute, things like shellfish were the ceremonial statutes. So while we may be free from the strictures of the ceremonial law and from the strict punishments demanded in the OT, what was morally wrong then is morally wrong now. So yes, I would believe that disobeying your parents, perjury and contempt of court, and breaking the Sabbath are just as wrong today as they were then

 

Depends on what kind of Christianity you follow and whether you hold the canonical Gospels to be the only true Gospels, since there are all kinds of Christian scriptures out there that were rejected for canonization at the Council of Nicea. Oh the subject of Christianity and Witchcraft, I went googling and this is one of the first things I found. This really interests me, as Gnosticism always has (I'm trying to learn more about it at the moment).

 

Right, as I said, others disagree. Personally I find Gnostic doctrines heretical based on my beliefs, so I wouldn't be able to agree with their understanding of the "Christian" faith.

 

As for the other link, I can understand her position a little more since it's not entirely rejecting huge portions of scripture and doctrine. But I would disagree on the point that it's "the thought that counts" and that God knows we won't be able to do better, so it's okay to sin as long as your saved. Just because you believe you have forgiveness for your sins doesn't make it any more right to do so. That's like saying, "well, I have the money to pay my fine, so it really doesn't matter if I drive recklessly. If I get caught, it'll be okay." But, as I said, plenty of people disagree with me, and it's not my place to pass judgment on her salvation.

[inlaterdays]

Kat, first you say you only mean terrorists, but then you post things like this:

 

"These people are barbaric PERIOD. They also think the solution is to kill, they do not know what peace is. Yep, got to love their religion, not."

 

and

 

"there will never be peace where there is Islam".

 

I don't see how that refers to only terrorists. It sounds like you are talking about all Muslims, and the generalizations you are making are not true for all or even for most Muslims. Every religion, philosophy, and creed has its fringe element, unfortunately, and some of those fringe elements are violent and scary.

 

But that doesn't mean people should be intolerant of each other, no matter what religion they profess, or whether they don't believe in religion at all. We are all human beings.

 

 

[Rosedamai]

Kat, we have no way whatsoever of knowing what you've meant, unless you let us take a peek inside your brain or something. Thus we can only judge what you've meant based on what you have wrote. You keep generalizing an entire group of people, and then when people point that out, you say that that's not what you've meant. Perhaps you should strive to be clearer next time. This is what you've said.

 

These people are barbaric PERIOD. They also think the solution is to kill, they do not know what peace is. Yep, got to love their religion, not.

When you have a religion that requires total submission, and death is the price you pay for not submitting, there will never be peace. Some people will not ever, ever submit. Therefore, there will never be peace where there is Islam. Foolish to think we could ever bring them peace, they live and die by the sword and if they don’t have a foreign enemy to kill, they turn on each other. “Give me liberty or give me death", someone once said.

You've just insulted a whole religion, and then you ask us why people are upset? Oh, and I'd like to add-

With the subtle growth of Islam in America, we need to seriously ask ourselves how long will it be before this foreign religion enacts the same anti-American mayhem on our shores?!!!!

Some people in the U.S are second/third generation immigrants. they are Americans and should be treated as such. You cannot call them "foreign" all the time because they regard themselves pretty solidly as Americans, have the passport, the citizenship, what have you. If you're going by the line of "well they're still immigrants they don't belong here" I would like to ask-were the original pilgrims born in the U.S? No. None of you, by extension, belong there, except for Native Americans. Edited September 16, 2012 by ylangylang

[prairiecrow]

Kat, first you say you only mean terrorists, but then you post things like this:

 

"These people are barbaric PERIOD. They also think the solution is to kill, they do not know what peace is. Yep, got to love their religion, not."

 

and

 

"there will never be peace where there is Islam".

 

I don't see how that refers to only terrorists. It sounds like you are talking about all Muslims, and the generalizations you are making are not true for all or even for most Muslims. Every religion, philosophy, and creed has its fringe element, unfortunately, and some of those fringe elements are violent and scary.

 

But that doesn't mean people should be intolerant of each other, no matter what religion they profess, or whether they don't believe in religion at all. We are all human beings.

Bolding mine.

 

Kat, you did NOT say "there will never be peace where there is the Taliban". You specifically mentioned an entire religion, thereby including all its members.

 

And that's just plain unfair to the vast majority of Muslims who do not view violence as the ethical and just way to relate to others.

 

I recall an earlier set of posts where I sarcastically referred to (paraphrasing) "those damn dirty Muslims who live in the sand dunes and kill good Americans", and your response was, "I like the way you think".

 

Disturbing stuff.

 

ETA: By the way, Wicca and other forms of NeoPaganism are also growing in North America by leaps and bounds. Do you find that objectionable as well? Is the USA only a place for Christianity?

Edited September 16, 2012 by prairiecrow

[~Kat~]

Bolding mine.

 

Kat, you did NOT say "there will never be peace where there is the Taliban". You specifically mentioned an entire religion, thereby including all its members.

 

And that's just plain unfair to the vast majority of Muslims who do not view violence as the ethical and just way to relate to others.

 

I recall an earlier set of posts where I sarcastically referred to (paraphrasing) "those damn dirty Muslims who live in the sand dunes and kill good Americans", and your response was, "I like the way you think".

 

Disturbing stuff.

 

ETA: By the way, Wicca and other forms of NeoPaganism are also growing in North America by leaps and bounds. Do you find that objectionable as well? Is the USA only a place for Christianity?

I will try and remember to always put the terrorist so the people who can not read between the lines or understand the depth or the meat of the topic that is posted will not take me wrong again. I am trying to clarify this. Many know I say what I mean, and I do not back down. NO, I do not like a terrorist view on Islam at all. These people (the terrorists) are not peaceful and are blowing up the american base's and killing our USA good people. I am sorry that I am not like some on here that can see humanity in the terrorists. My son that has done 2 tours over there has some horrible pictures and stories, it is awful what these people do to their own race let alone the enemy. Yes, so I do not slight others who have loved ones over there, so I am not the only one with a loved one fighting before one of you come back at me for that, I do not have a problem with Islam faith. There are those who are very peaceful who practice this faith. As far as what you posted earlier, I took it as you were talking about terrorists, if not then I disagree with you.

 

I hope I have clarified what I meant now. If not, I am so sorry that some of you do not understand.

 

Look at the topic I posted please, it is referring to the TALIBAN.

 

Taliban: Afghanistan Attack Linked To Anti-Islam Film

 

KABUL, Sept 15 (Reuters) - Afghanistan's Taliban claimed responsibility on Saturday for an attack on a base which U.S. officials said killed two American Marines, saying it was in response to a film that insults the Prophet Mohammad.

 

 

[inlaterdays]

I will try and remember to always put the terrorist so the people who can not read between the lines or understand the depth or the meat of the topic that is posted

I honestly don't think this is the issue. I think the issue is that yes, you copied and pasted an article that referred to the Taliban, but in your commentary you referred to Islam, the whole religion.

 

You also said that there was no way to distinguish violent from non-violent Muslims and that "our government needs to send them all back from where they came from". That honestly doesn't sound like you are just talking about the Taliban.

 

There's no way of telling when ANYONE is going to snap. Unfortunately, it happens, and no one group of people has a monopoly on violence. The solution is not to deport everyone who doesn't share your religious views. The US was founded on religious freedom, among other ideas.

[~Kat~]

I honestly don't think this is the issue. I think the issue is that yes, you copied and pasted an article that referred to the Taliban, but in your commentary you referred to Islam, the whole religion.

 

You also said that there was no way to distinguish violent from non-violent Muslims and that "our government needs to send them all back from where they came from". That honestly doesn't sound like you are just talking about the Taliban.

 

There's no way of telling when ANYONE is going to snap. Unfortunately, it happens, and no one group of people has a monopoly on violence. The solution is not to deport everyone who doesn't share your religious views. The US was founded on religious freedom, among other ideas.

This may not seem the issue to you, but I have a problem with the terrorists. We are all different, and we all think differently.

 

If you were to check out the Politics thread, I posted because this is war, I would rather them go back to their country as well, so it is not just about religion to me. I hate it because the world is this way, but we were attacked underneath our own noses 9/11 by the terrorists. I am not ready to die just yet. It is unfortunate that the good people from those countries live here. I sympathize with the peaceful people from there caught up in this ugly war, and now the radicals and terrorists are going crazy.

 

No, no one can distinguish violent from non-violent Muslims.

 

I firmly believe we will be attacked again by the terrorist, or the terrorist will try, and I hope it is not as bad as 9/11.

[Rosedamai]

If you were to check out the Politics thread, I posted because this is war, I would rather them go back to their country as well, so it is not just about religion to me. I hate it because the world is this way, but we were attacked underneath our own noses 9/11 by the terrorists. I am not ready to die just yet. It is unfortunate that the good people from those countries live here. I sympathize with the peaceful people from there caught up in this ugly war, and now the radicals and terrorists are going crazy.

 

No, no one can distinguish violent from non-violent Muslims.

So we should bomb them all and let god sort them out? Why does this sound like the same logic that led to the Japanese internment camps? You do know that there are Muslims in your countries that firmly think that they are American, as they were born in raised here?

[inlaterdays]

Kat, you missed my point. Or I stated it badly. Sorry about that.

 

What I was saying was: I don't think the confusion stems from people's reading comprehension (which seemed to be what you were implying - forgive me if I am wrong), but from the fact that your quoted article and your commentary are at odds with each other with regard to terminology. The article mentioned the Taliban, but your commentary mentioned Islam.

 

I've been posting in the Politics thread, so yes, I know what is going on there.

 

No one can distinguish violent from non-violent people of any religion or creed, unfortunately. There is no way to be 100% safe. People shoot up restaurants, movie theaters, classrooms, shopping malls, businesses, and clinics. People send bombs through the mail. This is not restricted to one religion and the solution is not to scapegoat and deport everyone of one religion. That is unfair and would not help anything.

 

Where would the Muslim families who have been here for generations go "back" to? This is their home country just as much as it is every citizen's and no one has the right to tell them to leave.

 

 

 

Edit: to bring this a little more back on topic and change the subject slightly, my own family is pretty diverse when it comes to religion. There are several families where the parents are of different faiths, and some who don't really participate in organized religion. It's nice to have different points of view in the same family and still all get along.

Edited September 16, 2012 by inlaterdays

[~Kat~]

Kat, you missed my point. Or I stated it badly. Sorry about that.

 

What I was saying was: I don't think the confusion stems from people's reading comprehension (which seemed to be what you were implying - forgive me if I am wrong), but from the fact that your quoted article and your commentary are at odds with each other with regard to terminology. The article mentioned the Taliban, but your commentary mentioned Islam.

 

I've been posting in the Politics thread, so yes, I know what is going on there.

 

No one can distinguish violent from non-violent people of any religion or creed, unfortunately. There is no way to be 100% safe. People shoot up restaurants, movie theaters, classrooms, shopping malls, businesses, and clinics. People send bombs through the mail. This is not restricted to one religion and the solution is not to scapegoat and deport everyone of one religion. That is unfair and would not help anything.

 

Where would the Muslim families who have been here for generations go "back" to? This is their home country just as much as it is every citizen's and no one has the right to tell them to leave.

 

 

 

Edit: to bring this a little more back on topic and change the subject slightly, my own family is pretty diverse when it comes to religion. There are several families where the parents are of different faiths, and some who don't really participate in organized religion. It's nice to have different points of view in the same family and still all get along.

People that have been here for generations I have no problem with.

 

The people the government are watching because of some shady activity, I do hope they watch them closely.

 

I have no problem with anyones religion as long as they are peaceful, and it does not hurt people or animals.

 

I know that you can not deport people because of just anything. I am sorry that I have this fear after 9/11, as 9/11 was very real and horrible.

 

 

[KageSora]

~Kat~, I just wanna jump in here for a sec and offer some insight into what I've been noticing.

 

It seems that people "misunderstand" what you say a lot--I don't know if we're actually misunderstanding you or if you're just backpedaling when you're caught saying something distasteful, but I like to believe it's the former.

 

 

One of the ways to lay out what you're saying to get people to agree with you is to leave out one or two parts of your argument--this causes the audience to fill it in themselves.

 

This can work very well when they fill in the information you want them to, and they're more likely to side with you because they feel like they came to the same conclusions as you did on their own.

 

However, when they fill in the wrong information, that causes them to be less likely to side with you.

 

That's what I think is happening here.

 

 

This is what you appear to be saying to some of us (if you're not, then you should consider word choice, because this is what it looks like, even if it's not what you meant):

 

The people who do these things are using religion as justification.

The people who do these things are barbaric.

 

You don't come out and say it, but there is an unfortunate implied conclusion here:

 

This religion is barbaric, and so are all those who practice it.

 

 

The problem with not spelling out the entire argument for your side is that people ARE going to fill in the wrong information. It's what people do. We each see the world with our own bias, and if we don't like what you seem to be saying, it's less likely that we'll supply the correctly implied information on our own.

 

It has nothing to do with us not being able to read between the lines--it has everything to do with using the wrong argument style with your current audience. We're reading between the lines just fine--we're just reading the wrong things between the lines, compared to what you're trying to imply.

 

You may not have meant that conclusion--you may have simply meant "These people are barbaric, and they use religion as their justification. That's bad". But, as I said, that's not the only conclusion people can draw from your words.

 

Especially when you make statements such as "yep, got to love their religion, not".

 

That implies that you believe the religion is the cause of their being barbaric rather than a cruel interpretation of it--which in turn implies that you believe any follower of the religion is also barbaric.

 

If this is not what you mean, you need to be clearer. You may not have even realized this--which is why I'm pointing it out.

 

It's an issue of communication. With text, we're not getting those visual cues or things such as tone of voice that might help us supply the correct implied information. You can try to shift blame and say that we're just not reading it right, but the burden of making sure their argument is understandable by their audience falls on the one putting it forth.

 

You can't control how people react, but careful choice of wording can make it more likely that they'll reach the conclusions you want and understand what you mean.

 

Everybody falls into this problem at some point or another, just figured I'd mention what I happen to be seeing.

[ShinyTomato]

How often do you think the "disobeying your parents" death penalty was used?

 

It varied, depending on the government of the time, and how willing the courts were to enforce it.

 

I could be wrong, but I have a very hard time imagining parents sending their children to be stoned in droves because they disobeyed once.

 

We know that in some reigns it was used for rather menial offenses.

 

What about the go-to Exodus passage, you shall not suffer a witch/sorceress to live? Is the word used there referring to contacting the dead as well?

 

Yep. In fact, that was the one I was referring to. The Leviticus passage uses a different word, Ba'al ob, or those who are masters over ghosts while the go to verse uses Yidde'oni, those who gain information from the dead

 

and breaking the Sabbath are just as wrong today as they were then tongue.gif

 

And yet, here you are, breaking the Sabbath, even if you consider Sunday the Sabbath.

 

 

 

 

 

[NobleOwl]

I have no problem with anyones religion as long as they are peaceful, and it does not hurt people or animals.

 

Wait a minute, wait a minute, I thought you were Christian? The entire religion of which is based on a sacrifice?

 

So what happens when the Temple is restored, and sacrifices resume? Will Judaism then become a religion you have a problem with?

 

Not even mentioning the many religions that have animal sacrifice now.

[satyr76]

One of the things that really put me off from Christianity was the passage where God told someone to sacrifice his son, and he almost did before God told him it was just a test. I found that kind of... I don't think "sadistic" is the right word, but I can't think of a better one. It just seemed like a really nasty thing to do, and I don't see how someone could sacrifice their own son because a deity told them to.

[ShinyTomato]

One of the things that really put me off from Christianity was the passage where God told someone to sacrifice his son, and he almost did before God told him it was just a test. I found that kind of... I don't think "sadistic" is the right word, but I can't think of a better one. It just seemed like a really nasty thing to do, and I don't see how someone could sacrifice their own son because a deity told them to.

The interesting thing about the Binding of Isaac is that Isaac was not a child. He got into an argument with his brother, who said that he was less willing to sacrifice or shed blood for G-d, because Ishmael had been circumsised as a child, while Isaac had been a baby.

 

It was a test to both, and Abraham knew it was never going to happen. You'll note when speaking to his servants, he says "we" will return. The only time child sacrifice can be inferred as being to G-d is the story of Jepthath.

[satyr76]

The interesting thing about the Binding of Isaac is that Isaac was not a child. He got into an argument with his brother, who said that he was less willing to sacrifice or shed blood for G-d, because Ishmael had been circumsised as a child, while Isaac had been a baby.

 

It was a test to both, and Abraham knew it was never going to happen. You'll note when speaking to his servants, he says "we" will return. The only time child sacrifice can be inferred as being to G-d is the story of Jepthath.

Oh, really? Haha, sorry, I didn't catch that detail. It's been years since I studied the story. Thanks for that. c:

[Kestra15]

How often do you think the "disobeying your parents" death penalty was used? Serious question, I'm sure you've done more study on it than I have. But considering it would have to be the parent turning the child in, I can't see many parents saying "Oooohhh little Jimmy talked back to his momma! It's time for stoning." My picture of the "spirit of the law," if you will, in that passage is an incredibly rebellious child whose behavior was beyond being corrected. I could be wrong, but I have a very hard time imagining parents sending their children to be stoned in droves because they disobeyed once.

And yet this is the problem that many have with those who take a literal belief in the Bible - they cherry-pick the bits they like, and conveniently ignore those they don't.

 

If someone wants to use the Bible as their principle argument in a case, that XYZ shouldn't be allowed because the Bible says so, then what about everything else? Why is it some parts are interpreted, and some parts taken literally - almost always at the convenience of the reader? Why is it that when I argue that some parts of the Bible are out-of-date and need to be read in the context of the times, more hard-line believers will ignore my argument when it doesn't conform with the creature-comforts of their lives, and yet will use the self-same argument - which is now perfectly justifiable in their eyes - when it benefits them?

 

This is my biggest gripe with most organised religions - either take the whole of your holy text literally word-for-word, or accept that all of it is open to interpretation. Don't just chose the bits you like.

[NobleOwl]

Oh, really? Haha, sorry, I didn't catch that detail. It's been years since I studied the story. Thanks for that. c:

That would be because it's not in the Christian Bible. The Old Testament/Tanakh is basically Cliff Notes -- you miss a lot of the story.

[armadillosushi]

I, for one, dont believe in religion- false hope depresses me.

[TikindiDragon]

I, for one, dont believe in religion- false hope depresses me.

While I completely respect your position - I would like to say that for most people of faith it wouldn't be considered 'false' hope. The existence (or lack thereof, depending on your point of view) of the soul is not something that science can yet prove or disprove.

[Vhale]

People that have been here for generations I have no problem with.

So you'd deport all my in-laws. My nephews grandparents and all his aunts and uncles. They fled here because his grandmother is Bahai, (none of them are) but Bahai were in mortal danger in their country. I've been told, when you flee Iran, you take everyone and leave no one behind or the rest of the family suffers. My nephew's father was brought over when he was 12.

 

As is, my nephew's voter ID registration mysteriously never came through. His last name means he gets the extra pat down with the TSA. And yet, the worst terrorist act before 9/11? It was the Oklahoma bombing. The only people caught with chemical weapons in the US since then, are all militants. But, the white right wing kind, not muslims. But, politics in our country stands to gain from making people afraid of muslims and it sells papers. So, they suffer for others to make a profit off it.

 

http://www.salon.com/2012/09/13/when_the_big_lie_works/