Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
It is clear that you did not really read the "Skeptics Annotated Bible". Read it carefully and you will see that God was intollerant toward the non-Jews whether they were evil or not.
Second Corinthians says to keep away from unbelievers. Neither marry nor be friends with them. Perhaps, for your sake, we should not be friends. According to Titus, Jews are unruly liars whose mouths must be stopped. It says that the people of Crete are always liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.
Read Deuteronomy 2:25 All nations shall be terrorized by the followers of Yahweh.
Look at Deuteronomy 2:30 God hardened the heart of the king of Heshbon and so that he could have him and all of his people killed.
God instructs the Israelites to utterly destroyed the men, women, and the little ones leaving "none to remain" in Deuteronomy 2:33-36.
God instructs the Israelites to kill, without mercy, all the inhabitants (strangers) of the land that they conquer in Deuteronomy 7.
Gosh. Perhaps the non-Jews were not very cooperative, but for the Jews to kill everyone is to be a little bit severe, isnt it? I mean that if I were at war with a neighbor and I was the sole survivor, Id surrender and beg for my life. These Jews, supposedly under Gods instruction, were not very tolerant.
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/int/long.html
That is so striking. We have two different books that are supposedly talking about the same god. The Old Testament has cruelty and violence. Then, all of a sudden, we have another book that talks about turning the other cheek and loving your enemy. Did god change his mind about how humans are to settle their differences? The whole inconsistency of the Bible really turns me off. Why were people not allowed to wear clothing of different fabric in the Old Testament but I am free to wear different material today? Because Jesus came, Im also allowed to eat pork, right?
You certainly like taking things out of context, eh?
Using that technique, I could make a math book seeminly to be constantly in error.
You are either driven by a hatred for Christianity or are reallly stupid, or both. But either way, you are certainly dishonest to others by trying to spread the ideas of how you supposedly interpet those passages to mean.
Of course I see the difference. Im one of the most analytical and nit-picky people on this board. Now that, I think, you have admitted your lie or mistake in saying that Christianity was never spread by the sword (action) we can debate and discuss religious commandments (instructions) and how inconsistent they are in religious books.
I will say she was mistaken because in the case of Dale Earnhart, she admitted she was wrong, and future editions of her book were corrected. The woman has written millions of words. She uses more facts than any other pundit I've ever read, and she is rarely wrong. But when she is, she admits it.
I'll give some more examples of mistakes she's made with facts and the reaction to them:
In one of her books she mistook someones grandfather for their father. As soon as this mistake was noticed, the knives came out and Ann was villified for it. Al Franken wrote, in one of his books, about this error and called it a lie by saying that the man was not the subjects father without ever once mentioning the fact that he was the subjects grandfather. Ann's confusing a mans grandfather with his father was a mistake. Calling her a liar without ever mentioning that the fact that she simply confused the relationship was a deliberate, and nasty, attempt to smear her. She admitted that mistake and corrected it.
Speaking of Franken, Ann once said that they had met socially and were "friendly". Well, Franken took great issue with that, and again called her a liar. Ann corrected that, too. She admitted that she did not mean to imply they were friends, just that they had met socially and were cordial to each other in social settings. I believe she said she should have used the term "civil" instead of friendly. But, seriously, how fucking petty can you get?
Ann was accused of lying by calling the end notes in her books "foot notes". Again, she admitted she was guilty of this terrible lie. She did refer to end notes as foot notes. And so do a hell of a lot of other people.
Considering the vast amount that Coulter has written, and the copious facts she uses to back up her opinions, she has made very few mistakes, has admitted and corrected every one, and none of them could possibly be considered a lie. Except by those who hate her opinions. And when calling her a liar doesn't work, they go after her looks.
No, my assertion is not an opinion, it is a fact. As for your "reasonable assumption" I can only conclude history is not your strong point. Anyway, I'm done and dusted. You can lead a horse to water and all....
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Shamoun/prepubescent.htm....And here is a religious fatwah that mentions Muhammads physical relations with Aisha:
Praise be to Allah and peace be upon the one after whom there is no [further] prophet.
After the permanent committee for the scientific research and fatwahs (religious decrees) reviewed the question presented to the grand Mufti Abu Abdullah Muhammad Al-Shemary, the question forwarded to the committee by the grand scholar of the committee with reference number 1809 issued on 3/8/1421 (Islamic calendar). The inquirer asked the following:
It has become wide spread these days, and especially during weddings, the habit of mufakhathat of the children (mufakhathat literally translated means "placing between the thighs" which means placing the male member between the thighs of a child). What is the opinion of scholars knowing full well that the prophet, the peace and prayer of Allah be upon him, also practiced the "thighing" of Aisha - the mother of believers - may Allah be please with her.
After the committee studied the issue, they gave the following reply:
It has not been the practice of the Muslims throughout the centuries to resort to this unlawful practice that has come to our countries from pornographic movies that the kufar (infidels) and enemies of Islam send. As for the prophet, peace and prayer of Allah be upon him, thighing his fiancée Aisha. She was six years of age and he could not have intercourse with her due to her small age. That is why [the prophet] peace and prayer of Allah be upon him placed HIS [MALE] MEMBER BETWEEN HER THIGHS AND MASSAGED IT SOFTLY, as the apostle of Allah had control of his [male] member not like other believers. ...
10. A husband has sex with his wife, as a plow goes into a dirt field.
9. Husbands are a degree above their wives.
8. A male gets a double share of the inheritance over that of a female.
7. A womans testimony counts half of a mans testimony.
6. A wife may remarry her ex-husband if and only if she marries another man, they have sex, and then this second man divorces her.
5. Slave-girls are sexual property for their male owners.
4. A man may be polygamous with up to four wives.
3. A Muslim polygamist may simply get rid of one of his undesirable wives.
2. Husbands may hit their wives even if the husbands merely fear highhandedness in their wives (quite apart from whether they actually are highhandedas if domestic violence in any form is acceptable).
1. Mature men are allowed to marry prepubescent girls.
http://answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/women_top_ten.htm
All you liberal women should really enjoy Islam. :firing:
Yea, should be interesting. No more sexual harassment seminars, ey?
Isn't is funny how things turn out when men make the rules?
All you liberal women should really enjoy Islam. :firing:
You do realize orthodoxy or fundamentalism in all of the three major religions has misogynist concepts, right?
So... your point?
The elevation of Mary as the Mother of God is misogynist?
As a Catholic, I've never experienced any denigration of women or been taught that they were supposed to be. Perhaps you could enlighten me?
Catholic women aren't allowed to be priests. Orthodox Catholic women aren't allowed to use birth control and are forced to bear child after child...
Orthodox/fundamentalist Judaism doesn't allow women to be rabbis, sit near men during prayer (which usually means being segregated behind a wall). Orthodox men are not allowed to touch a woman who is not their wife, including the shaking of hands, because she might be "unclean"... meaning she has her period.
In fundamentalist Christianity, women are taught that they are supposed to be "subservient" to their husbands and are told this is somehow being a "good Christian".
Shall I go on?
Only males can be priests, woman can be nuns. Do you consider a nun to be less holy?
Catholics can use birth control, perhaps not the type that you wish to use. No one forced me to have more children than I wanted. Perhaps you can offer up a link to prove this absurdity.
Im not all that familiar with traditions of the Jews, but wasnt Islam created after Christianity? Christain women dont have to sit behind walls, so why are Muslim women not even allowed in the Mosque? Thank you for ranking up more points for me why Islam is a sham.
My spouse and I enjoy our marriage as equals. I wasnt aware of this requirement that you speak of. Perhaps you could provide a link ..
Please do go on. When you get to the point that Catholic and Jewish women are treated like crap on par with Islamic edicts, by your sole judgment of course, then get back to me.
Catholic women aren't allowed to be priests. Orthodox Catholic women aren't allowed to use birth control and are forced to bear child after child...
Orthodox/fundamentalist Judaism doesn't allow women to be rabbis, sit near men during prayer (which usually means being segregated behind a wall). Orthodox men are not allowed to touch a woman who is not their wife, including the shaking of hands, because she might be "unclean"... meaning she has her period.
In fundamentalist Christianity, women are taught that they are supposed to be "subservient" to their husbands and are told this is somehow being a "good Christian".
Shall I go on?
: I mean do you really want someone to touch your wife, daughter, or sister?
Catholic women aren't allowed to be priests. Orthodox Catholic women aren't allowed to use birth control and are forced to bear child after child...
Orthodox/fundamentalist Judaism doesn't allow women to be rabbis, sit near men during prayer (which usually means being segregated behind a wall). Orthodox men are not allowed to touch a woman who is not their wife, including the shaking of hands, because she might be "unclean"... meaning she has her period.
In fundamentalist Christianity, women are taught that they are supposed to be "subservient" to their husbands and are told this is somehow being a "good Christian".
Shall I go on?
You are exactly right on the bolded part.
