Abraham

[The ClayTaurus]

And I would venture to say that his brother probably would know if he was an atheist or not. And why would he say he was an atheist if he wasn't?

I don't know if we can definitely find absolute proof that he was an atheist but it sure seems to be the case. Just because it doesn't mention it on one particular website it doesn't mean it's not the case. I saw several websites where it was claimed that he was an atheist.

 

[Annie]

PM, you do know that you are sounding a lot like someone else? :shocked:

 

[Powerman]

Sorry guys I'm on my dads laptop and I can't type for shit on here so I haven't been spending much time on the forum. If you were even remotely interested in finding the information you would have found it.

http://www.valleyskeptic.com/atheist_foxhole.html

http://uncivillitigator.blogspot.com/2004/05/rich-tillman-on-pat-tillman.html

http://bad.eserver.org/reviews/2005/leanosstatement.html

God himself could come down and tell you Pat Tillman was an atheist and you wouldn't believe it anyway.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Sorry guys I'm on my dads laptop and I can't type for shit on here so I haven't been spending much time on the forum. If you were even remotely interested in finding the information you would have found it.

http://www.valleyskeptic.com/atheist_foxhole.html

http://uncivillitigator.blogspot.com/2004/05/rich-tillman-on-pat-tillman.html

http://bad.eserver.org/reviews/2005/leanosstatement.html

God himself could come down and tell you Pat Tillman was an atheist and you wouldn't believe it anyway.

Wow Powerman, you should be teaching at a University. You would fit in quite well.

First, all your links, the closest I could get to Pat T. being an "atheist" is HIS BROTHER claiming he WASNT RELIGOUS. But as usual, you take words and change them, then claim its the same meaning when it isnt.

Maybe he was an atheist, I dont know, but you have provided NO PROOF.

Not religous does not mean atheist.
His brother stating it, doesnt make it fact.

Besides, I think the quote brought into question was "there are no atheists in foxholes" which is not meant to be literal anyways, but, we dont even know PAT TILLMANS thoughts right before he died , do we? So how do you know his last thoughts were of him clinging to his SUPPOSED atheism?

I really love that bastard who hides behide his being chicano, and how on universities Freedom of speech is sooooo beloved, YEA, try going to one of their rallies flying pro BUSH banners, see how long their beloved FREEDOM of speech will last. Bullshitting lying hypocritical vile putrified assholes is what they are.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Why Jihad Watch?
Because the West is facing a concerted effort by Islamic jihadists, the motives and goals of whom are largely ignored by the Western media, to destroy the West and bring it forcibly into the Islamic world -- and to commit violence to that end even while their overall goal remains out of reach. That effort goes under the general rubric of jihad.

Jihad (in Arabic, "struggle") is a central duty of every Muslim. Modern Muslim theologians have spoken of many things as jihads: the struggle within the soul, defending the faith from critics, supporting its growth and defense financially, even migrating to non-Muslim lands for the purpose of spreading Islam. But violent jihad is a constant of Islamic history. Many passages of the Qur'an and sayings of the Prophet Muhammad are used by jihad warriors today to justify their actions and gain new recruits. No major Muslim group has ever repudiated the doctrines of armed jihad. The theology of jihad, which denies unbelievers equality of human rights and dignity, is available today for anyone with the will and means to bring it to life.

Jihad Watch is dedicated to bringing public attention to the role that jihad theology and ideology plays in the modern world, and to correcting popular misconceptions about the role of jihad and religion in modern-day conflicts. We hope to alert people of good will to the true nature of the present global conflict.

More...

http://www.jihadwatch.org/


Mariner. Just start here. Wake to the truth.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

http://librabunda.blogspot.com/

So the trouble we will have with Muslims will not come only from without, but in the future we can expect trouble from the Muslims within. The millions of Muslims living here in the West will not integrate, because it is not in their worldview to do so. It is also forbidden them by their very own Prophet Himself, the Prophet Muhammad. He forbade Muslims even to befriend infidels. He also exhorted them to kill us. And he certainly told them that they should live separate lives, and dress and behave differently, so that they could easily tell themselves apart.

No Western politician is going to be able to change these facts. For facts they are indeed. Moreover, as Islam will grow here, their numbers will become greater and greater, and they will be able to use our democratic system to outvote us and introduce their form of government based as it is on their beloved Shariah, or quranic laws! How do you propose we shall be able to stop them? We shall be outnumbered, and as the outcome of democratic elections depends on the number of votes cast, we shall be able to do nothing about it! This time will come quicker than we might think, because so few babies are being born to infidel families.

The only thing left for people to do, will be to fight. Inevitably, at some point, civil war will ensue. If the political process fails people, then this will be all that will be left for them: civil war, guerre civile, Bürgerkrieg, call it what you will.

But one thing I can assure you, no politicians' sweet talk, posturing, or manœvring, will get us out of this one without conflict at some point in the future.

 

[Mariner]

I could find only one reference in a reputable source (The Nation). A letter to the editor said Pat's brother spoke at his funeral, saying:

"Pat isn't with God. He's f---ing dead. He wasn't religious. So thank you for your thoughts, but he's f---ing dead."

In regard to Jihad, RightWing, I completely agree with you that there are militant Islamist groups around the world who would celebrate any harm done to the West. But by blaming all Muslims for their beliefs, I think you are playing into exactly the "us against them" tribal type of thinking that humans are way too susceptible to. We're like chimpanzees, whose tribes raid, rape, and murder each other. I think it's a biological trait. Think of "Red Sox Nation" and its visceral--but totally senseless--"hatred" of the Yankees. Sports offer a great place to play out this tribal aspect of our nature. Politics is the worst place to play it out, as history has proven again and again.

Let's not be Osama bin Laden's dupes. He wants Westerners to hate Muslims, so Muslims will hate them back, so we'll hate them some more, and it all ends up in WW3. If we work to ease tensions rather than inflame them, we work against him. Vilifying Muslims is to fall into his trap. He spelled it out very clearly in his writings.

Everyone hates occupation and everyone likes a Holy War--especially the 3 religions of the Middle East. Think about it--Israelis commit terrorist acts as part of founding their state (holy war). Palestinians experience occupation and respond with intifadeh (holy war). A born-again Christian president topples the ruler of a Muslim country (holy war) and occupies it. An insurgency appears (holy war). And why did bin Laden commit 9/11? As a holy war in response to our occupation of military bases in his homeland of Saudi Arabia.

The language of these three religions, and their fixed tendencies, are all too similar--and seem all too likely to lead us to endless conflict if we can't find a different way to see things.

Instead of vilifying all Muslims or their faith, we should work to isolate the few who are using that faith to manipulate, just as the propogandists who started anti-Muslim rumors fanned the flames of the Crusades (which were, after all, holy wars in response to a conjured bad feeling about occupation of Jerusalem by non-Christians). Same old story. We need to make a new one.

Mariner.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I could find only one reference in a reputable source (The Nation). A letter to the editor said Pat's brother spoke at his funeral, saying:

"Pat isn't with God. He's f---ing dead. He wasn't religious. So thank you for your thoughts, but he's f---ing dead."

In regard to Jihad, RightWing, I completely agree with you that there are militant Islamist groups around the world who would celebrate any harm done to the West. But by blaming all Muslims for their beliefs, I think you are playing into exactly the "us against them" tribal type of thinking that humans are way too susceptible to. We're like chimpanzees, whose tribes raid, rape, and murder each other. I think it's a biological trait. Think of "Red Sox Nation" and its visceral--but totally senseless--"hatred" of the Yankees. Sports offer a great place to play out this tribal aspect of our nature. Politics is the worst place to play it out, as history has proven again and again.

Let's not be Osama bin Laden's dupes. He wants Westerners to hate Muslims, so Muslims will hate them back, so we'll hate them some more, and it all ends up in WW3. If we work to ease tensions rather than inflame them, we work against him. Vilifying Muslims is to fall into his trap. He spelled it out very clearly in his writings.

Everyone hates occupation and everyone likes a Holy War--especially the 3 religions of the Middle East. Think about it--Israelis commit terrorist acts as part of founding their state (holy war). Palestinians experience occupation and respond with intifadeh (holy war). A born-again Christian president topples the ruler of a Muslim country (holy war) and occupies it. An insurgency appears (holy war). And why did bin Laden commit 9/11? As a holy war in response to our occupation of military bases in his homeland of Saudi Arabia.

The language of these three religions, and their fixed tendencies, are all too similar--and seem all to likely to lead us to endless conflict if we can't find a different way to see things.

Instead of vilifying all Muslims or their faith, we should work to isolate the few who are using that faith to manipulate, just as the propogandists who started anti-Muslim rumors fanned the flames of the Crusades (which were, after all, holy wars in response to a conjured bad feeling about occupation of Jerusalem by non-Christians). Same old story. We need to make a new one.

Mariner.

The muslim community itself has to isolate those who use it to incite violence, but we both know that isolation would isolate the very monarchs of the region themselves. You bring down Iran, Syria, etc.. , stop the funding of hate producing madrassas, and get hip to freedom or we will do it for you. see?

And it's the muslim world which rejects the idea of multicultural societies, which christians have built by the way.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Think about it--Israelis commit terrorist acts as part of founding their state (holy war). Palestinians experience occupation and respond with intifadeh (holy war). A born-again Christian president topples the ruler of a Muslim country (holy war) and occupies it.

Mariner.

Yea, I am thinking about it. Im thinking about why YOU LIE so much about Christianity.

You wont respond to this cuz I sound you out on your most basic problem, you lie because you want to spread propaganda and distort reality.

Invading Iraq is not a holy war, we have not occupied, and we have plans on leaving it intact as a Muslim country. How is that holy war? It isnt you LIAR.
Your lack of response TO THIS POINT will be proof you are a deliberate LIAR.
Does anyone, anywhere, with half a brain listen to your stuff at all?????

 

[5stringJeff]

I've been reading up on Christianity and Islam, trying to understand them better, including reading the Bible and the Koran.

I was thinking about Abraham and the issue of obedience to one's god.

If your god told you to kill your own son, would you?

Mariner.

Pat Tillman and Powerman rants aside, here's my answer to your question.

God's instruction to Abraham to sacrifice Isaac was significant in many ways. On multiple occasions, God had given Abraham a promise that Abraham's family, through Isaac, would be more numerous than the sand on the seashore, and that all nations would be blessed through his offspring through Isaac. So this really turns into a test of how much Abraham trusted God. In the book of Hebrews, in the New Testament, we read that Abraham considered that God could raise Isaac from the dead, so he obeyed in taking Isaac to the mountain to be sacrificed. However, God intervened before Isaac was killed, because it was not God's will for Abraham to sacrifice his own son.

The story also has prophetic overtones, in that Abraham's son Isaac was not a sufficient sacrifice to give to God. However, God's own son, Jesus Christ, was found to be a sufficient sacrifice for the salvation of all mankind.

So, the question of 'If God told you to kill your own son, would you?' is not really a good question, because it is not God's will that we sacrifice human beings in worship to God. The question we glean from this story is, "Do I have enough faith in God to follow His will, even when it doesn't necessarily make sense to me?"

Hope that's a decent answer, Mariner.

 

[Mariner]

Yes, it's a much more thoughtful answer than most people have been willing to give so far, and it does make some sense to me. Thank you.

LuvRPgirl, you're on a constant kick recently of calling me liar. Where did I lie about Christiantity exactly? Don't forget, my wife is a Christian, and we're raising our daughter as one. I may not be one myself, but I think I know something about the religion.

RightWing, yes Christians have built multicultural societies. So have Muslims. At the point that the Crusades began, Muslims had a perfectly fine multicultural and multireligious society covering a huge and sophisticated empire far more advanced in science, art, and philosophy than anything Europe had to offer. That's why Europeans had to adopt the Arabic words (alcohol, alchemy, algebra) for all these new concepts and the Arabic numerals that went with them.

So, there's nothing in Islam that requires mono-culturalism.

I agree that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was not seen here as a crusade, though George Bush once unfortunately used that word when speaking of it. I was more concerned with how Muslims see it, which is certainly as a crusade in the old kill-the-infidel-Muslim sense.

Mariner.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Anything about Jihad, mariner? Will you admit your stupefying ignorance regarding the topic?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

RightWing, yes Christians have built multicultural societies. So have Muslims.

Multicultural societies in islam are composed of Muslims and everyone else, who lives in a state of legal second class citizenship called dhimmitude.http://www.dhimmitude.org

so, there's nothing in Islam that requires mono-culturalism.

I'm talking about multiculturalism where all cultures within have the same rights.

I was more concerned with how Muslims see it, which is certainly as a crusade in the old kill-the-infidel-Muslim sense.

.

If they see it that way, they need to be disabused of their wrong notions. Why don't you educate them instead of asking us to accomodate their ignorance?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

LuvRPgirl, you're on a constant kick recently of calling me liar. .

The shoe fits.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Pat Tillman and Powerman rants aside, here's my answer to your question.

God's instruction to Abraham to sacrifice Isaac was significant in many ways. On multiple occasions, God had given Abraham a promise that Abraham's family, through Isaac, would be more numerous than the sand on the seashore, and that all nations would be blessed through his offspring through Isaac. So this really turns into a test of how much Abraham trusted God. In the book of Hebrews, in the New Testament, we read that Abraham considered that God could raise Isaac from the dead, so he obeyed in taking Isaac to the mountain to be sacrificed. However, God intervened before Isaac was killed, because it was not God's will for Abraham to sacrifice his own son.

The story also has prophetic overtones, in that Abraham's son Isaac was not a sufficient sacrifice to give to God. However, God's own son, Jesus Christ, was found to be a sufficient sacrifice for the salvation of all mankind.

So, the question of 'If God told you to kill your own son, would you?' is not really a good question, because it is not God's will that we sacrifice human beings in worship to God. The question we glean from this story is, "Do I have enough faith in God to follow His will, even when it doesn't necessarily make sense to me?"

Hope that's a decent answer, Mariner.

Thats precisely correct. Its a non sensical, unfair and INTENTIONALLY DECEITFUL question. Thats why it shouldnt be answered. Its similiar to the question "have you quit beating your wife" as the question itself makes some presumptions. In this case the presumption is God could ask you to do something evil with the full intent of it being carried out

Since there is NOTHING in the Bible to indicate God would ask to fully carry out such a thing, there is no reason for the question. The story was to illustrate the FAITH of Abraham, and has NOTHING to do with a "possible" evil act God may ask us to do. For God to ask us to do something evil is counterintuitive since He cannot commit evil Himself.

My response is not to answer the question, but to explain why the question shouldnt be answered, per se, which is what the author wants, because answering the question presumes the possiblity of God asking such an act.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Back to the original question--LuvRPgirl said her religion would never ask her to sacrifice her child. But in the Bible, that's just what God asks Abraham to do. She's argued for the sanctity of the Bible, so I am curious about the contradiction there. .

Thats a very deceitful (lie) statement, and you know it. God didnt "ask" Abraham to kill his son, he commanded him to. It was only to see if Abraham had enough faith in God to do the one act he would least want to do. And you know that.

It was a command to test faith, not to kill. If it was a command to kill, then Abraham would have killed his son. Since he didnt kill his son, it was NEVER a command to kill his son.

You are not sincere nor honest. You use propagandist terms when talking about the history of Christianity, but you dont when talking about Islam.
You behave civilly and use polite terms but you intercede them with vile terms and propaganda about Christianity, while claiming to only be interested in talking about the truth.

In spite of you claiming your wife claims to be a Christian, I dont know why you hate Christianity. The difficulty is even responding to you gives your question some credibility it doesnt deserve.

 

[ThomasPaine]

If I was Isaac I would have killed my dad. That would have probably been the best thing that could have ever happened in the world.

What a worthless individual you are. May God have mercy on you as my patience has run out...

 

[ThomasPaine]

I could find only one reference in a reputable source (The Nation). A letter to the editor said Pat's brother spoke at his funeral, saying:

"Pat isn't with God. He's f---ing dead. He wasn't religious. So thank you for your thoughts, but he's f---ing dead."

In regard to Jihad, RightWing, I completely agree with you that there are militant Islamist groups around the world who would celebrate any harm done to the West. But by blaming all Muslims for their beliefs, I think you are playing into exactly the "us against them" tribal type of thinking that humans are way too susceptible to. We're like chimpanzees, whose tribes raid, rape, and murder each other. I think it's a biological trait. Think of "Red Sox Nation" and its visceral--but totally senseless--"hatred" of the Yankees. Sports offer a great place to play out this tribal aspect of our nature. Politics is the worst place to play it out, as history has proven again and again.

Let's not be Osama bin Laden's dupes. He wants Westerners to hate Muslims, so Muslims will hate them back, so we'll hate them some more, and it all ends up in WW3. If we work to ease tensions rather than inflame them, we work against him. Vilifying Muslims is to fall into his trap. He spelled it out very clearly in his writings.

Everyone hates occupation and everyone likes a Holy War--especially the 3 religions of the Middle East. Think about it--Israelis commit terrorist acts as part of founding their state (holy war). Palestinians experience occupation and respond with intifadeh (holy war). A born-again Christian president topples the ruler of a Muslim country (holy war) and occupies it. An insurgency appears (holy war). And why did bin Laden commit 9/11? As a holy war in response to our occupation of military bases in his homeland of Saudi Arabia.

The language of these three religions, and their fixed tendencies, are all too similar--and seem all too likely to lead us to endless conflict if we can't find a different way to see things.

Instead of vilifying all Muslims or their faith, we should work to isolate the few who are using that faith to manipulate, just as the propogandists who started anti-Muslim rumors fanned the flames of the Crusades (which were, after all, holy wars in response to a conjured bad feeling about occupation of Jerusalem by non-Christians). Same old story. We need to make a new one.

Mariner.

that the United States and it's allies invasion of Iraq was a "holy war". Absolute Bullshit which is what you muckrake with ceaselessness. If it was a "Holy War" we'd be about converting Muslims to Christianity. The "Crusades" were a response by Christendom to the overreaching of Islam. The pope and the remains of Byzantium recognized Islam had to be stopped. Jerusalem was the rallying cry but the halt of the spread of Islam into Europe was the goal. The Muslims had been stopped at the Battle of Tours(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tours) from entering Northern Europe. The pope and the Byzantines wished to stop further encroachment via modern day Turkey into Europe. Thus the "Crusades". However the "Crusades" were not a "Holy War" in the respect that conversion of the heathen Muslim was not the goal, but control of parts of Palestine and a halt to Islamic inroads into Europe. Did you enjoy your history lesson you ignoramous....?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

that the United States and it's allies invasion of Iraq was a "holy war". Absolute Bullshit which is what you muckrake with ceaselessness. If it was a "Holy War" we'd be about converting Muslims to Christianity. The "Crusades" were a response by Christendom to the overreaching of Islam. The pope and the remains of Byzantium recognized Islam had to be stopped. Jerusalem was the rallying cry but the halt of the spread of Islam into Europe was the goal. The Muslims had been stopped at the Battle of Tours(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tours) from entering Northern Europe. The pope and the Byzantines wished to stop further encroachment via modern day Turkey into Europe. Thus the "Crusades". However the "Crusades" were not a "Holy War" in the respect that conversion of the heathen Muslim was not the goal, but control of parts of Palestine and a halt to Islamic inroads into Europe. Did you enjoy your history lesson you ignoramous....?

Holy war, YEAH!, Thats why we give them a BIBLE instead of the Koran in the prison we have them detained,,,,opppps, my bad, we give them the Koran, dont we??? Hmmmm, doesnt seem like a good way to make them convert. Must be fatten em up for the kill..

or, maybe Mariner just uses words that are false, thus LYING.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

If I was Isaac I would have killed my dad. That would have probably been the best thing that could have ever happened in the world.

And your justification for Murdering your dad would have been?

It couldnt be for that laptop he lent you could it? I mean, is it freezing up that much? That frustrating trying to type posts on it, so that you would murder your dad over it?