From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Sep 13 14:11:23 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2B1C37B400 for ; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 14:11:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.comcast.net (smtp.comcast.net [24.153.64.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FE5443E6E for ; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 14:11:18 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from lomifeh@earthlink.net) Received: from bgp586692bgs.jdover01.nj.comcast.net (bgp586692bgs.jdover01.nj.comcast.net [68.39.202.147]) by mtaout01.icomcast.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 HotFix 1.4 (built Aug 5 2002)) with ESMTP id <0H2E005SRAUTBW@mtaout01.icomcast.net> for chat@FreeBSD.ORG; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 17:11:17 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 17:11:15 -0400 From: Lawrence Sica Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-reply-to: <20020910111130.M63148-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Message-id: <56E23FA6-C75D-11D6-AC2E-000393A335A2@earthlink.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.543) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Friday, September 13, 2002, at 03:43 PM, Neal E. Westfall wrote: > > > On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, Lawrence Sica wrote: > >>> Where does Christianity justify any of this? A condemnation of a >>> behavior does not amount to a justification for persecution. And the >>> fact that slavery existed in the Bible also does not amount to a >>> justification of it. >>> >> Jesus by his actions lived by not persecuting "Let he who is without >> sin cas the first stone". Remember that line? > > Yes, I do. I also remember the context in which he said it. It was > not some loosey-goosey "tolerance" of sin. It was meant to point out > their hypocrisy and their own sin. > > I was saying it was tolerance for the sinners, not the sin. It is tolerance of people, not blind persecution. >> Also the Bible was used >> as justification by twisting interpretations and making up meanings. > > What does this prove, except that man by nature is sinful? > It means that man interprets god how he wishes. > >> The story of Noah and the flood was used to justify slavery at one >> point. > > That would be a pretty interesting feat! If true, who in the world > would buy it? > Many did at the time. > >>>> Every religion has it's contradictions, Islam isnt >>>> special here. And What is the exact wording the koran uses? Are >>>> you >>>> sure you are interpreting it correctly? That's the great thing >>>> about >>>> any religious writing, its "divine inspiration" but then man is >>>> left >>>> to decipher it's meaning.... >>> >>> If Islam is going to accept the authority of the Christian gospels, >>> it >>> does not then have the right to contradict its most fundamental >>> claims. >>> Claiming that every religion has its contradictions does not make it >>> so. >>> Islam defeats itself on *it's own* terms. >>> >> >> This does not answer the question, what exactly does the Koran say? > > Muslims do not think that God would allow his prophet to be killed. As > such, they think that God took Jesus directly to heaven. Surah > 4:157-158 > states: "That they said (in boast), 'We killed Christ Jesus the son of > Mary, the Messenger of Allah' -- but they killed him not, nor crucified > him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein > are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to > follow, for of a surety they killed him not -- nay, Allah raised him up > unto Himself." > What you stated here doesn't answer where it says they think the Bible is canon. > >>> I can just see it now, everybody is going to jump in with their list >>> of 101 bible contradictions. I've been there and done that, folks. >>> You know, maybe we ought to treat the Bible just like any other piece >>> of literature, and if two passages *can* be interpreted in such a way >>> as to make them not blatantly contradictory, maybe we ought to accept >>> that interpretation, eh? >>> >> You brought this up, if you bring it up expect others to point out >> things. > > And my point stands. If you are going to claim that two passages are > contradictory, you need to show that there is no possible way that they > can be reconciled with regard to contextual issues. You only have a > true contradiction if what is asserted in both cases is at the same > time and in the same relationship. > > My point was if you complain about other religions being contradictory be prepared to have your own religions contradictions pointed out, and complaining about others doing so is not productive. --Larry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message