Posted by katwoman Do you think that the law stops someone who is sincerely interested in accomplishing a goal? (If yes, think of what this website is about. heh )

I need to re-phrase this ^ to avoid misunderstanding.


Do you think that the thought of getting caught breaking the law would stop someone who is sincerely interested in doing so? Hence, the comparison to this website.

Posted by katwoman I need to re-phrase this ^ to avoid misunderstanding. Do you think that the thought of getting caught breaking the law would stop someone who is sincerely interested in doing so? Hence, the comparison to this website.

If they got caught in Saudi Arabia, yes.

...and I've just heard that he's converted to Judaism.

Apparently, there are more paid religious holidays in Judaism.

So it was about economics after all.

Go figure.

There are missionaries in Saudi Arabia.

The only point I'm trying to make here is that some people will risk opposition in any form in order to do what they feel is right. Heard of martyrs?

I strongly believe in educating the world that evolution is correct but I'm not stupid enough to risk a death sentence in Saudi Arabia for it.

Posted by The Doctor I strongly believe in educating the world that evolution is correct but I'm not stupid enough to risk a death sentence in Saudi Arabia for it.

...or Kansas...

Posted by katwoman There are missionaries in Saudi Arabia. The only point I'm trying to make here is that some people will risk opposition in any form in order to do what they feel is right. Heard of martyrs?

I'm going to re-quote myself from a couple responses back so that I may clarify for YOU. This is an irritating misunderstanding.

The thing is, if the news that this [insert: Keyword: this] Muslim-turned-Christian has spread already, that country [I'll clarify that I'm speaking of the country the anonymous martyr is supposedly in] would have thrown him in jail. He wouldn't still be going around preaching. [this guy. THIS ONE. THE ONE WE WERE TALKING ABOUT.]

IN THAT COUNTRY. If the SAME DUDE that Kubla is talking about is being reported about on the news, etc, then SAUDI ARABIA would have ALREADY killed his ass. THAT is what I was trying to say. IN THAT CIRCUMSTANCE.

Yes, of course I've heard of martyrs, katwoman. Of course I know there are missionaries preaching their ideas of "the word" to people that already have their own "words." Please do not forget to read ALL the words before you respond, so that you understand what you are responding to. Thank you.

Em

Posted by Emma Peel I'm going to re-quote myself from a couple responses back so that I may clarify for YOU. This is an irritating misunderstanding. IN THAT COUNTRY. If the SAME DUDE that Kubla is talking about is being reported about on the news, etc, then SAUDI ARABIA would have ALREADY killed his ass. THAT is what I was trying to say. IN THAT CIRCUMSTANCE. Yes, of course I've heard of martyrs, katwoman. Of course I know there are missionaries preaching their ideas of "the word" to people that already have their own "words." Please do not forget to read ALL the words before you respond, so that you understand what you are responding to. Thank you. Em

Well...the guy who sent me the email re: this conversion story, now tells me that the person of interest here, the guy who converted and then converted again, has now recanted everything. He's re-converted, as it were.

AND he's obviously alive and well. AND he yelled DOWN WITH AMERICA as he did his final re-conversion/recanting thing.

Go figure...

Crazy! People never cease to amaze or puzzle, do they.


... Emma Peel, there wasn't anything in your last post that I hadn't already understood from your earlier posts. Thanks, though! (If we want to continue clarifying back and forth, that's cool with me, but maybe take it to PM's so the thread doesn't get bogged down. )

Posted by katwoman Crazy! People never cease to amaze or puzzle, do they. ... Emma Peel, there wasn't anything in your last post that I hadn't already understood from your earlier posts. Thanks, though! (If we want to continue clarifying back and forth, that's cool with me, but maybe take it to PM's so the thread doesn't get bogged down. )

I love katwoman.

(I realize this is an old topic but had to pipe in with my .02....)

I think it's ridiculous that anyone of any religion wants to run around handing out literature on their religion. Muslim, Jewish, Christianity.....pretty much the same thing. Jesus may have said 'spread the word' but that 'word' has been misinterpreted, retranslated and improvised on 1000's of times so how can any religion say they are preaching the 'word'?

As far as letting Muslims know other alternatives....trust me, I'm sure unless they live under a rock and have never had contact with the outside world, they know there are alternatives. As far as it being illegal to teach other religions in Muslim countries, that's a political issue and not a religious one. The core of most religions do not teach that it's a sin to learn of other religions...if that were the case, the prophets from the "Big 3" religions would have never even had the chance to spread the new testaments.

Religion is brought into the mix so much and frankly, it causes more havoc then anything. People always need an excuse to categorize another human being, religion is the most used method. I personally feel that it all should be left alone except in debates between willing participants.

What's going on with people handing out bibles in war torn countries is a propaganda tactic. In times of unrest, of course people may begin to believe that 'their God' or 'their method of worship' is failing them and the chances of them considering a new way is highly likely. And isn't it convenient that the country with the most interest in Iraq happens to be a Christian dominated country? It's a method to get them to see things our way, pure and simple.

Posted by Seek In Shadows Jesus may have said 'spread the word' but that 'word' has been misinterpreted, retranslated and improvised on 1000's of times so how can any religion say they are preaching the 'word'?

If one acknowledges that the books of the Bible are the most accurate source for information on the life of and teachings of Jesus, one need only read his words to the scribe:

Matthew 12 verses 28-34:

28 One of the scribes, when he came forward and heard them disputing and saw how well he had answered them, asked him, "Which is the first of all the commandments?"
29 Jesus replied, "The first is this: 'Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is Lord alone!
30 You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.'
31 The second is this: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these."
32 The scribe said to him, "Well said, teacher. You are right in saying, 'He is One and there is no other than he.'
33 And 'to love him with all your heart, with all your understanding, with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself' is worth more than all burnt offerings and sacrifices."
34 And when Jesus saw that (he) answered with understanding, he said to him, "You are not far from the kingdom of God." And no one dared to ask him any more questions.

This pretty much sums it up for me. Straight-forward, not much possibility to misinterpret

Religion is brought into the mix so much and frankly, it causes more havoc then anything. People always need an excuse to categorize another human being, religion is the most used method. I personally feel that it all should be left alone except in debates between willing participants.

I've held the opinion that the best religion is the one which brings you closer to God. Period.

What's going on with people handing out bibles in war torn countries is a propaganda tactic. In times of unrest, of course people may begin to believe that 'their God' or 'their method of worship' is failing them and the chances of them considering a new way is highly likely. And isn't it convenient that the country with the most interest in Iraq happens to be a Christian dominated country? It's a method to get them to see things our way, pure and simple.

As a citizen of a "Christian dominated country" I would not be offended if a Muslim gave me a copy of the Koran and asked me to check it out or tried to share their faith with me in an unthreatening way. I really don't have a problem with evangelizing, heck, I even invite the Mormon's and Jehovah's Witnesses in when they come to the door and sometimes chat with them for over an hour and I KNOW they are there to convert me. As Christians we are called to share our faith in God with our fellow man, wherever and whomever they are, through our words and our deeds. I have respect for those who do so, especially in countries like Iraq, even if I do not agree with their tactics or theology.

Posted by Trixi If one acknowledges that the books of the Bible are the most accurate source for information on the life of and teachings of Jesus,

Actually, I don't consider the Bible as an accurate source. The original bible was put together almost 400 years after the death of Jesus and then, a non-Christian had his say so on what was to be placed in the Bible and what was not. This fact alone, I consider it to be an extremly flawed source.

This pretty much sums it up for me. Straight-forward, not much possibility to misinterpret

The point is that it's not really a matter of how you interpret anything in the bible. Whatever version of the bible you are currently taking as being "The Bible", it is a product of countless interpretations, revisions, etc.

As a citizen of a "Christian dominated country" I would not be offended if a Muslim gave me a copy of the Koran and asked me to check it out or tried to share their faith with me in an unthreatening way. I really don't have a problem with evangelizing, heck, I even invite the Mormon's and Jehovah's Witnesses in when they come to the door and sometimes chat with them for over an hour and I KNOW they are there to convert me. As Christians we are called to share our faith in God with our fellow man, wherever and whomever they are, through our words and our deeds. I have respect for those who do so, especially in countries like Iraq, even if I do not agree with their tactics or theology.

The point is this...not many Jehovah Witnesses or Mormans have gone on killing sprees throughout history to 'convert' people to their religions. That is what the Crusades were for the Christians. Therefore, the sheer mention of Christianity in many cultures brings up visions of bloodshed, tyranny and abuse of authority. Granted that was ancient history; however, similar, although to a lesser degree is being conducted today. For example, the activity of the Catholic church in Africa (as I am currently becoming up to date on so forgive me when I can not quote exact information) in the name of Christianity, is appalling, thus, further tainting the opinion of other cultures regarding Christianity.

My opinion? Leave it alone. There is no one religion that is correct and I think it's egotistical of anyone to feel they have the right to 'enlighten' others to their 'correct' way of believing.

Posted by Seek In Shadows Actually, I don't consider the Bible as an accurate source.

Actually, what I said was the "books of the Bible" meaning the individual books, not the entire canon.

For example, the activity of the Catholic church in Africa (as I am currently becoming up to date on so forgive me when I can not quote exact information) in the name of Christianity, is appalling, thus, further tainting the opinion of other cultures regarding Christianity.

What "activity" are you referring to? Please enlighten us, once you find the facts that can back this up.

My opinion? Leave it alone. There is no one religion that is correct and I think it's egotistical of anyone to feel they have the right to 'enlighten' others to their 'correct' way of believing.

It's amazing to me how many egotistical people there are with no religion who can't wait to "enlighten" others to their "correct" way of NON-believing, but that's a topic for another day.

Posted by Trixi Actually, what I said was the "books of the Bible" meaning the individual books, not the entire canon.

I fail to see how there is any difference

It's amazing to me how many egotistical people there are with no religion who can't wait to "enlighten" others to their "correct" way of NON-believing, but that's a topic for another day.

I hope you aren't referring to me because I don't recall stating what my personal religious beliefs are so it would be very presumptuous of you to assume that I don't have any religion.

I will find info regarding what I said about the Catholic Church's action in Africa, so I can be more specific. One area in particular is how the Catholic Church is telling people it is sinful to have protected sex when AIDS is running rampant in Africa, more so than in any other country. However, I have an entire book on the subject and will produce a synopsis later.

Edited to elaborate further on the HIV in Africa issue:

The church's standpoint that the use of condoms is either evil (against God) or simply doesn't protect against the spread of HIV has farther reaching implications that just he spread of the disease. Over-population in Africa has ablways been an issue, faminine as well...this leads to more diseases than HIV, crowding of orphanages and I'm sure other issues I haven't even touched upon. Not only that, if Africans began to "regress" as the Church puts it, to their traditional religions, the priests/bishops are instructed to put more pressure on those people to convert. Ridiculous. Let them be. As I said it's appalling to me.

Posted by Trixi Actually, what I said was the "books of the Bible" meaning the individual books, not the entire canon.

One book or all the books, the source of it (them) isn't accurate.

EDIT:

More than one example of the Catholic Church's role in Africa:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story/0,7369,1059068,00.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3176982.stm

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000102&sid=a1.ixKA4PAJs&refer=uk

<insert cheerleaders here>

GOOOOO CATHOLIC CHURCH!

Posted by Seek In Shadows I fail to see how there is any difference

The Bible as we know it is the 4th century compilation of the individual books which make up the Old and New Testament. Those books were around before there was a "Bible" and were written by people who were eyewitnesses, knew people who were or were around shortly after the fact to report about it. Why do you not accept their word as an accurate source? The New Testament was written mainly in Greek which is fairly common language to translate. I guess I don't get your logic.

I hope you aren't referring to me because I don't recall stating what my personal religious beliefs are so it would be very presumptuous of you to assume that I don't have any religion.

Well, I wasn't referring to you specifically, but since you mentioned it, your quote "Religion is brought into the mix so much and frankly, it causes more havoc then anything. People always need an excuse to categorize another human being, religion is the most used method. I personally feel that it all should be left alone except in debates between willing participants", as well as the entire tone of your posts left me with the feeling that you were not of the religious sort. Sorry.

HIV in Africa...good grief, what will the Catholics be blamed for next. I like to think that if the African people were to actually follow the Church's teachings, much of the spread of AIDS might be prevented. The World Health Organization says that "consistent and correct" condom use reduces the risk of HIV infection by 90%. Assuming their figures are correct, that still leaves the 10 percent who tried their luck and failed. I wonder how many AIDS victims there are who must have had that same false sense of security that using a condom will bring until the moment it breaks or is found to be "incorrectly" used.

Posted by Trixi The Bible as we know it is the 4th century compilation of the individual books which make up the Old and New Testament. Those books were around before there was a "Bible" and were written by people who were eyewitnesses, knew people who were or were around shortly after the fact to report about it. Why do you not accept their word as an accurate source? The New Testament was written mainly in Greek which is fairly common language to translate. I guess I don't get your logic.

They do not know who wrote the canonical texts. Even the Gospel of John, they believe may have been written by a follower of his teachings. The sheer fact that there were probably 100s of different Christianities around at the time that they decided to put the bible together and the fact that they pick and chose which parts of whatever Christianities to put in there....yeah, we're not getting the entire story. If I remember dates correctly, the oldest copy of the a canonal text they have is are the end of the 1st century A.D. ( I am going completely off of memory here so I may be wrong, but I know it is much older than any apostle could have been to have written it that late)

Sure Greek may be easy to translate; however, just because the original bible was in Greek, does not mean that the manuscripts they derived the bible from was in Greek as well. In fact, some of them were in Aramaic, Coptic and Hebrew. You lose meaning in translation, it's a fact. Especially after translation after translation.

If you want to speak of age, and taking that as meaning accuracy, then you need to look at the Magdelene (Mary Magdelene) Gospel. This is the oldest copy they have of any type of Gospel. It's dated around 50 A.D. and includes part of Matthew, Mark and John (I believe I am naming the correct gospels). And, that's not even in the Bible.

So....to take the Gospels as put forth in the Bible as the "Word" of God when it was compiled by men, disected and put back together to fit the agenda of someone who wasn't even Christian himself (Constantine), I find that to be blind and uninformed. You have to question why things were included, why things were left out, why were other Christianites persecuted (Cathers for one), why did James, who theologians now believe was the blood brother of Jesus, and the one who is believed to be the one Jesus instructed to carry on the His word, attack Peter, accusing him of speaking heresies.....and why is Peter now 'the father of the Church"? And why would I beleive anything put forth by the Romans, the ones that tried time and time again to squash Christianity, until they saw it was a good political move? Why did the Catholic Church allow Magdelene to be portrayed as a prostitute when there is no evidence of such and the Church even admitted it? And why won't they now recognize the Gospels of her, Phillip and others known to be around at the time of the formation of the Bible. You can't say it because of non-conformity to other information in the other Gospels because there are many many discrepanices in what IS accepted in the Bible today. Why are there some books that were in the original bible that aren't there today?

To answer why I don't accept the accuracy of the Bible, you have to find the answers to those questions yourself.

HIV in Africa...good grief, what will the Catholics be blamed for next. I like to think that if the African people were to actually follow the Church's teachings, much of the spread of AIDS might be prevented. The World Health Organization says that "consistent and correct" condom use reduces the risk of HIV infection by 90%. Assuming their figures are correct, that still leaves the 10 percent who tried their luck and failed. I wonder how many AIDS victims there are who must have had that same false sense of security that using a condom will bring until the moment it breaks or is found to be "incorrectly" used.

I never accused the Church of causing HIV in Africa....they are responsible for forming the current attitude towards it there with African Catholics. The Catholic Church has done a great dis-service to the African Catholics by putting them in a position between their spirituality and the facts of life. It is backwards and unholy in the fact that they are LYING about the facts. Stating a fact (condoms don't stop the spread of HIV)based on 10%? That's ridiculous. That's like saying Birth Control doesn't work at all in preventing preganancy because there's a 5% chance it won't work. Why would they do that? That's another question you have to ask yourself.

And in regards to following the Church's teachings....well, if we all did that, we wouldn't be here right now would we. We wouldn't be breaking the laws of our governments, which the Catholic Church says you can't do, by trespassing during UE'ing, we wouldn't have even learned to read and write because the Church preached against that as well. There would not even be other religions, because that was against Church 'teachings' as well. Heck, while we're at it, maybe we should 'turn our face' from all homosexuals or women who dress as men because heck, church says we have to do it.

Frankly, I believe that blind faith is the most dangerous thing on Earth. People not questioning what they are spoon fed leads us astray more times than not, and when it's done in the name of God, and followed by a punishment of an eternity in Hell, you just created the atom bomb or morality and people will begin to do anything in the name of there religion if it is so taught to them.

And by the way....my religion is Catholicism. I just question what I'm taught to death. And personally, my life has done nothing but improve since I began doing such. If it were a sin to question religion, well then Jesus will be in Hell right along the side of me.

**Edited twice because I apparently don't know proper English when in a furvor of typing.

Wow...i'd really like to respond but since I don't have the time right now to do all the research needed to back up my claims with facts, i'll have to let this one pass.

Although I disagree with much of what you said, I do appreciate the passion with which you defend your beliefs.

Posted by Trixi The Bible as we know it is the 4th century compilation of the individual books which make up the Old and New Testament. Those books were around before there was a "Bible" and were written by people who were eyewitnesses, knew people who were or were around shortly after the fact to report about it. Why do you not accept their word as an accurate source? The New Testament was written mainly in Greek which is fairly common language to translate. I guess I don't get your logic.

So. A book goes through a couple of hundred (or maybe even a thousand) translations by people of various degrees of literacy...often relying on the 'eye witness' testimonials of some, etc. etc. etc. and almost 2000 years later, I am to accept this 'book' as an authentic translation from the original source which is, in my view, of dubious credibility in the first place?

Sorry. No goddamned way.

HIV in Africa...good grief, what will the Catholics be blamed for next.

This is a rhetorical question, right...?

I like to think that if the African people were to actually follow the Church's teachings, much of the spread of AIDS might be prevented.

And if science still trembled at the feet of Catholic orthodoxy, we'd still be condemning people like Galileo. Managing a global health crisis is a bit different than counselling moral standards.

The World Health Organization says that "consistent and correct" condom use reduces the risk of HIV infection by 90%. Assuming their figures are correct, that still leaves the 10 percent who tried their luck and failed. I wonder how many AIDS victims there are who must have had that same false sense of security that using a condom will bring until the moment it breaks or is found to be "incorrectly" used.

I guess they should have consulted the other 90% who got it right.