I think the Muslim religion sucks, but this...

[Anguille]

i wonder how many people here have ever met and talked with muslim people.

I have 3 long time friends who are Muslim and years ago spent a lot of time with a group that included mostly Iranian immigrants. Religion was not our main topic of conversation but I recall of the two I was closest to, one said he was an avowed atheist and the other said she was agnostic but at the time was intrigued by Sufism and Sufi poetry. My Moroccan friend and French friend, a Muslim couple who are now American citizens, are major Obama supporters, but I haven't spoken to them since this incident. I'll be curious to hear their reaction.

 

[Anguille]

They can't, because the teachings of the Koran are in direct conflict with our laws, and freedom, period.

I have Bible question for you, Allie, in a novel I'm reading there is this quote from the Bible. Only, since the novel is written by a humorist and everything is very tongue in cheek, I don't know it it's a made up quote or not.
Here it is : " Deuterontomy 22:5 The woman shall not wear that which pertained unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are an abomination unto the Lord thy god".

If that is really from the Bible, does that mean that Hillary Clinton is an Obamination in a pantsuit? How about when Guilliani dressed in drag?

 

[AllieBaba]

Both are pretty bad.

Yes, it's in the Bible.
What is the meaning of Deuteronomy 22:5?
Question: What is the meaning of Deuteronomy 22: 5?

Answer: The verse in question reads as follows: "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God."

Scholars are not entirely sure as to the exact original application of the prohibition. Some of the uncertainty is due to the very similar way in which the male and female Jew dressed. However, there was still an effort to be made to maintain masculinity and femininity. The intermingling of genders was and is a matter of confusion that God forbids.

One scholar's comments. Commentator Matthew Henry makes some worth while comments on Deuteronomy 22: 5. He wrote thus: "…Some think it refers to the idolatrous custom of the Gentiles: in the worship of Venus, women appeared in armour, and men in women's cloths; this, as other superstitious usages, is here said to be an abomination to the Lord….It forbids the confounding of the dispositions and affairs of the sexes: men must not be effeminate…." (Complete Commentary on the Bible).

I do not know of any inherent, contextual, or remote contextual restriction placed on the general teaching of Deuteronomy 22: 5. The same principle is seen in the New Testament. Paul wrote: "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?" (I Cor. 11: 14). Clear distinction is made between the domestic roles of men and women (cp. Eph. 5: 22 ff.). Sharp differentiation is also seen between the function of men and women in religious matters. For instance, men are to be the leaders in the public worship of God (I Tim. 2: 8-15). Also, men are to be the elders and preachers among God's people (I Tim. 3: 1-7; Tit. 1: 5-11, I Tim. 2: 12-15). The movement, then, to make a gender free society is in opposition to the plain teaching of God's word.

 

[busara]

I have Bible question for you, Allie, in a novel I'm reading there is this quote from the Bible. Only, since the novel is written by a humorist and everything is very tongue in cheek, I don't know it it's a made up quote or not.
Here it is : " Deuterontomy 22:5 The woman shall not wear that which pertained unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are an abomination unto the Lord thy god".

If that is really from the Bible, does that mean that Hillary Clinton is an Obamination in a pantsuit? How about when Guilliani dressed in drag?

(not allie, but i have an answer). studied several verses such as these a few years ago for a report. the intent of the verse is to prevent gender associations from being used for the purpose of deceiving others, leading to sexual immorality. in other words, you cant change your dress or hair to look like a member of the opposite sex when purposeful deception is involved, usually resulting in sexual immorality.

an example would be a guy dressing up as a woman to sneak into the womans locker room. he is doing it with an intent to deceive others for his sexual gain. hillary wearing a pantsuit is not wrong, nor would a man dressing up as a woman in a shakespeare play be considered a sin.

some people disagree with this translation, but i believe it is the most accepted one amongst OT scholars.

 

[AllieBaba]

Yup.

 

[Ravi]

They can't, because the teachings of the Koran are in direct conflict with our laws, and freedom, period.

Not quite. People are free to believe what they wish but they aren't always allowed to act on their beliefs.

 

[Anguille]

Both are pretty bad.

Yes, it's in the Bible.
What is the meaning of Deuteronomy 22:5?
Question: What is the meaning of Deuteronomy 22: 5?

Answer: The verse in question reads as follows: "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God."

Scholars are not entirely sure as to the exact original application of the prohibition. Some of the uncertainty is due to the very similar way in which the male and female Jew dressed. However, there was still an effort to be made to maintain masculinity and femininity. The intermingling of genders was and is a matter of confusion that God forbids.

One scholar's comments. Commentator Matthew Henry makes some worth while comments on Deuteronomy 22: 5. He wrote thus: "…Some think it refers to the idolatrous custom of the Gentiles: in the worship of Venus, women appeared in armour, and men in women's cloths; this, as other superstitious usages, is here said to be an abomination to the Lord….It forbids the confounding of the dispositions and affairs of the sexes: men must not be effeminate…." (Complete Commentary on the Bible).

I do not know of any inherent, contextual, or remote contextual restriction placed on the general teaching of Deuteronomy 22: 5. The same principle is seen in the New Testament. Paul wrote: "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?" (I Cor. 11: 14). Clear distinction is made between the domestic roles of men and women (cp. Eph. 5: 22 ff.). Sharp differentiation is also seen between the function of men and women in religious matters. For instance, men are to be the leaders in the public worship of God (I Tim. 2: 8-15). Also, men are to be the elders and preachers among God's people (I Tim. 3: 1-7; Tit. 1: 5-11, I Tim. 2: 12-15). The movement, then, to make a gender free society is in opposition to the plain teaching of God's word.

Thanks for checking on that for me.
With so many different scholarly opinions on the meaning of this quote doesn't that give you the impression that the Koran (which contains the Bible within it) might be just as
open to interpretation? Including that part you say exists where it says Muslims can't be Americans?

Do you wear jodhpurs or chaps when you ride? Does that make you bad?

 

[Ravi]

Thanks for checking on that for me.
With so many different scholarly opinions on the meaning of this quote doesn't that give you the impression that the Koran (which contains the Bible within it) might be just as
open to interpretation? Including that part you say exists where it says Muslims can't be Americans?

Do you wear jodhpurs or chaps when you ride? Does that make you bad?

What are you smoking? The Koran does not contain the Bible within it.

 

[Anguille]

What are you smoking? The Koran does not contain the Bible within it.

It contains parts of the Bible.

 

[Ravi]

It contains parts of the Bible.

 

[Anguille]

I believe it contains a version of the Old Testament But I might be confusing it with The Book of Mormon. Seeing as I have read none of the three books I shouldn't have made that statement without doing some research. In any case, it doesn't make any difference if the issue is ambiguities in both the Bible and the Koran. Anyone can read what they want in both books and they do. Jihad, for instance, I've heard lots of talk about what it is, ranging from war on non believers to an inner struggle within oneself to serve God, and etc and etc.

 

[Ravi]

I believe it contains a version of the Old Testament But I might be confusing it with The Book of Mormon. Seeing as I have read none of the three books I shouldn't have made that statement without doing some research. In any case, it doesn't make any difference if the issue is ambiguities in both the Bible and the Koran. Anyone can read what they want in both books and they do. Jihad, for instance, I've heard lots of talk about what it is, ranging from war on non believers to an inner struggle within oneself to serve God, and etc and etc.

FOS Alert!

 

[Anguille]

FOS Alert!

Explain rather than flame, if you please.

 

[Anguille]

FOS Alert!

Have you read the Koran?

 

[Ravi]

If you are that unsure of what is in the Bible and the Koran, how is it that you come to have such strong opinions on either one's meaning? Surely your Muslim friends could clue you in at the very least.

 

[Ravi]

Have you read the Koran?

A translation of it.

 

[Anguille]

FOS Alert!

Here you go, something from a Catholic priest and the Global Catholic Network. I offer it presuming that is the religion you think does not suck, though you never actually answered my question about what were the religions you don't think suck.

A Look Inside the Koran and the Bible

"A Look Inside the Koran and the Bible

PART 1

Father Sidney Griffith Compares and Contrasts the Texts

WASHINGTON, D.C., 26 JULY 2004 (ZENIT)

Muslims think of the Koran as presenting in Arabic the same message that God had previously sent down earlier in the Torah, at the hands of Moses, and in the Gospel, at the hands of Jesus.

So says Father Sidney Griffith, a professor of Semitic and Egyptian languages and literature at the Catholic University of America.

Father Griffith shared with ZENIT how Christians can better understand the Koran and how its teachings on Christ and Revelation differ from those found among Christians.

Part 2 of this interview will appear Tuesday.

Q: What exactly is the Koran? How was it written?


...."

 

[Anguille]

A translation of it.

FOS alert!

 

[Anguille]

A translation of it.

Translated? by whom?

 

[manifold]