Minister beaten after clashing with Muslims on his TV show

By Jonathan Petre

Last updated at 4:39 PM on 15th March 2009

A Christian minister who has had heated arguments with Muslims on his TV Gospel show has been brutally attacked by three men who ripped off his cross and warned: ‘If you go back to the studio, we’ll break your legs.’

The Reverend Noble Samuel was driving to the studio when a car pulled over in front of him. A man got out and came over to ask him directions in Urdu.
Mr Samuel, based at Heston United Reformed Church, West London, said: ‘He put his hand into my window, which was half open, and grabbed my hair and opened the door.

He started slapping my face and punching my neck. He was trying to smash my head on the steering wheel.

Then he grabbed my cross and pulled it off and it fell on the floor. He was swearing. The other two men came from the car and took my laptop and Bible.’

The Metropolitan Police are treating it as a ‘faith hate’ assault and are hunting three Asian men.

In spite of the attack, Mr Samuel went ahead with his hour-long live Asian Gospel Show on the Venus satellite channel from studios in Wembley, North London. During the show the Muslim station owner Tahir Ali came on air to condemn the attack.

Pakistan-born Mr Samuel, 48, who was educated by Christian missionaries and moved to Britain 15 years ago, said that over the past few weeks he has received phone-in calls from people identifying themselves as Muslims who challenged his views.

‘They were having an argument with me,’ he said. ‘They were very aggressive in saying they did not agree with me. I said those are your views and these are my views.’

He said that he, his wife Louisa, 48, and his son Naveed, 19, now fear for their safety, and police have given them panic alarms. ‘I am frightened and depressed,’ he said. ‘My show is not confrontational.’

Minister beaten after clashing with Muslims on his TV show

By Jonathan Petre

Last updated at 4:39 PM on 15th March 2009

A Christian minister who has had heated arguments with Muslims on his TV Gospel show has been brutally attacked by three men who ripped off his cross and warned: ‘If you go back to the studio, we’ll break your legs.’

The Reverend Noble Samuel was driving to the studio when a car pulled over in front of him. A man got out and came over to ask him directions in Urdu.
Mr Samuel, based at Heston United Reformed Church, West London, said: ‘He put his hand into my window, which was half open, and grabbed my hair and opened the door.

He started slapping my face and punching my neck. He was trying to smash my head on the steering wheel.

Then he grabbed my cross and pulled it off and it fell on the floor. He was swearing. The other two men came from the car and took my laptop and Bible.’

The Metropolitan Police are treating it as a ‘faith hate’ assault and are hunting three Asian men.

In spite of the attack, Mr Samuel went ahead with his hour-long live Asian Gospel Show on the Venus satellite channel from studios in Wembley, North London. During the show the Muslim station owner Tahir Ali came on air to condemn the attack.

Pakistan-born Mr Samuel, 48, who was educated by Christian missionaries and moved to Britain 15 years ago, said that over the past few weeks he has received phone-in calls from people identifying themselves as Muslims who challenged his views.

‘They were having an argument with me,’ he said. ‘They were very aggressive in saying they did not agree with me. I said those are your views and these are my views.’

He said that he, his wife Louisa, 48, and his son Naveed, 19, now fear for their safety, and police have given them panic alarms. ‘I am frightened and depressed,’ he said. ‘My show is not confrontational.’


Muzzlims are SCARED TO DEATH of Christianity,,They know our religion is strong and CAN TAKE IT they have to resort to this kind of behavior,,they're weak. Goofy artists in the name of ART produce all kinds of stuff about JESUS,,GOD,,VIRGIN MARY,,ST.JOHN,,MARY MAGDALIN (sic) etc etc etc WE JUST "KEEP ON TRUCKIN' ". Muzzlims (they love it spelled that way) are also SCARED TO DEATH of the INTERNET.

At least they didn't cut this head off in the studio.

Another reason why we should be keeping our religions to ourselves.

Another reason why we should be keeping our religions to ourselves.

Yep they should have just KEPT ON TRUCKIN never mind the preacher.

Another reason why we should be keeping our religions to ourselves.

Perhaps you should keep your hostile atheism to yourself then.
Take the lead on this one.

Perhaps you should keep your hostile atheism to yourself then.
Take the lead on this one.

It's not hostile atheism it's common sense. If you want to play savior and publicly denounce someone's religion how can you not expect some kind of backlash? I'm not justifying the acts of the Muslims at all, but some recourse obviously is going to come from it. I don't know where you get this term of 'hostile' just because I have a different belief system than you do, or anyone. You disagree with me, so would you be a hostile theist? And where did I say I was an atheist at any point? If you really wanted to know, the best way to describe me would be non religious and agnostic. Please don't misconstrue this as I'm some kind of lost cause in terms of faith and that I'm afraid to accept a religion. I think I'm pretty tolerant towards religion, I just don't like my opinions infringed upon. Perhaps we should stop making ambiguous comments from aloft our pedestal and if you really disagree with one of my standpoints then I'll be glad to have a friendly debate about it. Don't put words in my mouth either.

If you want to play savior and publicly denounce someone's religion how can you not expect some kind of backlash?

First, where did it say he'd denounced Islam?
Second, why is it reasonable to presume that such disagreement will lead to intolerance or violence. Did the minister get have church thugs go back and teach these muslims a lesson?

Using that logic, you're denouncement of religion should cause you to expect an ass kicking as well. Denouncing all religion isn't any loftier than embracing another one.

If you really wanted to know, the best way to describe me would be non religious and agnostic.
As I was saying, you're "faith" in nothing is no better, worse, or different, than someone else's faith in something. And any candor regarding said lack of faith, or intolerance for people discussing theirs, infringes upon their opinion. Precisely as you wish to be protected.

making ambiguous comments from aloft our pedestal and if you really disagree with one of my standpoints then I'll be glad to have a friendly debate about it.
That's what I did.

First, where did it say he'd denounced Islam?
Second, why is it reasonable to presume that such disagreement will lead to intolerance or violence. Did the minister get have church thugs go back and teach these muslims a lesson?
Using that logic, you're denouncement of religion should cause you to expect an ass kicking as well. Denouncing all religion isn't any loftier than embracing another one.
As I was saying, you're "faith" in nothing is no better, worse, or different, than someone else's faith in something. And any candor regarding said lack of faith, or intolerance for people discussing theirs, infringes upon their opinion. Precisely as you wish to be protected.
That's what I did.

1.It said he had heated arguments with Muslims. You can honestly say he got into an emotional debate with Muslims and didn't say anything to undercut their credibility? Any time there is a religious debate it is in the attempt to make one side less reputable than the other, aka denouncing. It doesn't have to say the word "denounce" without implying it.

2. When someone asserts their belief or assumption as true without knowing if it is really true by experience, and then proceeds to claim that another person's religion is wrong or erroneous, they are being intolerant of another person's religion and belief system. I'm sure the minister wasn't on television saying Christianity is a possibility, and so is Islam, so I should equally believe in both or respect both as equals. Deeming that Christianity was true and the Muslims were wrong, or even debating the credibility of their beliefs, is the definition of intolerance. He doesn't need thugs to go teach Muslims a lesson. Both parties are wrong in violence as well as public denouncing.

in⋅tol⋅er⋅ant
   
–adjective
not tolerating or respecting beliefs, opinions, usages, manners, etc., different from one's own, as in political or religious matters

3. Being agnostic doesn't mean that you denounce all religions, it means you respect them as a possibility because they are not truths. It means that you are uncertain of such a religious truth due to evidence either a. not existing b. not being proven enough to be labeled as personal truth. Agnostic literally means without knowing. Beliefs and knowledge are two separate spheres. It is not an egocentric standpoint in which you believe you are the all holy center of the universe.

4. How can you attempt to use the same notion of religious equality that I intended against me? How can you say my standpoint, which is agnostic (or open minded), is hostile? Discussion about it is fine, heated debate is another thing. The intention of debate is to prove something wrong, in turn denouncing a religion. Religion should be a private institution, end of story. If you believe in a religion, you shouldn't have to convince other people, especially publicly on television.

1.It said he had heated arguments with Muslims.
But about what?
Did he merely say Mohammed was a pedophile thug with an irrational fear of dogs? If so, I say bravo. Most most likely, if a disagreement was drawn, it would have been on a particularly issue, like treating women like cattle, or honor killings, or slavery.... But neither of us know, and so far, neither of us are really all that compelled to find out.

Any time there is a religious debate it is in the attempt to make one side less reputable than the other, aka denouncing. It doesn't have to say the word "denounce" without implying it.
Again, not so. Some times it's a matter of discussing the merits of the philosophy or the interpretation of scripture. Sometimes, often times, it can be an embrace of the commonality and shared beliefs.


2. When someone asserts their belief or assumption as true without knowing if it is really true by experience, and then proceeds to claim that another person's religion is wrong or erroneous, they are being intolerant of another person's religion and belief system.
All belief systems are not equal.
And without specifics, it's difficult to discuss this further.

I have no "tolerance" for a religion that thinks it's acceptable and ordained by a God to treat non-believers as slaves. Or one that engages in honor killings. It's not "tolerant" to accept those things, it's foolish and wrong.

Islam is difficult to discuss in this context because, frankly, it's more of a death cult than a religion. But if this were a Christian, a hindu, and a Jew, there wouldn't necessarily be a problem.

Agnostic literally means without knowing. Beliefs and knowledge are two separate spheres. It is not an egocentric standpoint in which you believe you are the all holy center of the universe.
Which is a belief system in itself, not necessarily better or worse, merely defined by the choices you make as an individual.

4. How can you attempt to use the same notion of religious equality that I intended against me? How can you say my standpoint, which is agnostic (or open minded), is hostile? Discussion about it is fine, heated debate is another thing.
You didn't say discussion was fine, you posted a single sentence stating very clearly that you thought all discussion of theology should be kept to oneself.

The intention of debate is to prove something wrong, in turn denouncing a religion. Religion should be a private institution, end of story. If you believe in a religion, you shouldn't have to convince other people, especially publicly on television.
If the purpose of a religious television show is to discuss religion, it's entirely appropriate to discuss it there. In fact, YOU should support that since you'll be easily able to avoid it.

It is possible to debate religion, because it's a tremendously complex issue. It's even better to discuss it. In fact, if not for the thoughtful discussions of religion and religious philosophy, you wouldn't be living in a country that offers such individual freedoms.

Perhaps you should keep your hostile atheism to yourself then.
Take the lead on this one.

I'm interested in knowing how saying we should keep our religion to ourselves can be interpreted at "hostile atheism?" He's not telling people not to believe in their religions, just that they should be kept to themselves. He needn't even be atheist to make that statement - anybody of any religion could make that argument.

I'm interested in knowing how saying we should keep our religion to ourselves can be interpreted at "hostile atheism?" He's not telling people not to believe in their religions, just that they should be kept to themselves. He needn't even be atheist to make that statement - anybody of any religion could make that argument.

I've been over this.

Expressing or advancing a position of "no religion" is no more enlightened or distinguished than discussing a position "of religion."

In this case, if you don't want to enter the realm of theological discussion, don't say anything and leave the room.

Agnostics and atheists practice a double standard. Because they believe in nothing, or don't know what to believe in, that this is somehow a neutral position and more acceptable to discuss than a person who embraces faith. It's no different. Telling me you're an agnostic is no different than explaining to me why you think Christ is the savior.

If it's impolite or unacceptable to do one, so is the other.

I don't have a problem with either, so I don't mind if people discuss agnostics and atheists and religion all day.

Saying "I'm Christian", "I'm Muslim", "I'm Buddhist", "I'm Atheist" etc., is far different than telling people the principles of your religion and why they're the one and only 'truth'.

I can understand KD00L's stance; I doubt he minds someone bringing up the fact that they're a Christian (or other) in a conversation, but he gets irked when said Christian (or other) goes on to tell him why their viewpoint (accepting Jesus as savior etc.) is the one and only way.

I don't have a problem with Mormon's or Jehovah Witnesses, I do mind when they come knocking on my door and pedaling their religious views though.

But about what?
1.Did he merely say Mohammed was a pedophile thug with an irrational fear of dogs? If so, I say bravo. Most most likely, if a disagreement was drawn, it would have been on a particularly issue, like treating women like cattle, or honor killings, or slavery.... But neither of us know, and so far, neither of us are really all that compelled to find out.

2.Again, not so. Some times it's a matter of discussing the merits of the philosophy or the interpretation of scripture. Sometimes, often times, it can be an embrace of the commonality and shared beliefs.

3.All belief systems are not equal.
And without specifics, it's difficult to discuss this further.

3.I have no "tolerance" for a religion that thinks it's acceptable and ordained by a God to treat non-believers as slaves. Or one that engages in honor killings. It's not "tolerant" to accept those things, it's foolish and wrong.

3.Islam is difficult to discuss in this context because, frankly, it's more of a death cult than a religion. But if this were a Christian, a hindu, and a Jew, there wouldn't necessarily be a problem.

4.Which is a belief system in itself, not necessarily better or worse, merely defined by the choices you make as an individual.

5.You didn't say discussion was fine, you posted a single sentence stating very clearly that you thought all discussion of theology should be kept to oneself.


6.If the purpose of a religious television show is to discuss religion, it's entirely appropriate to discuss it there. In fact, YOU should support that since you'll be easily able to avoid it.

7.It is possible to debate religion, because it's a tremendously complex issue. It's even better to discuss it. In fact, if not for the thoughtful discussions of religion and religious philosophy, you wouldn't be living in a country that offers such individual freedoms.

1. If they are having heated religious debates, obviously it is being taken to a personal or at least an emotional level. It doesn't really matter what exactly was said, just enough to obviously offend someone and denounce something. If it turns out nothing it was the media that construed the situation, then the example gets thrown out the window. Religion still shouldn't be pressed upon people.

2. No. A discussion of different forms of philosophy takes on no biased standpoints. It is merely taking about the different properties of each, not if one is wrong or right. A debate is over right and wrong. Either way, this is not a discussion, it was clearly labeled a debate.

3. It really doesn't matter what your opinion is on a specific religion, it's about tolerance as a whole and privacy. Obviously not all belief systems are equal, but that doesn't matter either. If they were equal, they'd be the same religion.

4. Again, I never claimed I came from an enlightened place or that agnosticism was a higher form of intellect. It's about personal preference and your own logic.

5. There are also many things you didn't claim in your condensed sentence either. Many different things could have been derived from that. Such as...

"Another reason why we should be keeping our religions to ourselves."

1. Keep it personal, as in one person.
2. Keep it in the confines of your own religion's members.

6. If the purpose of the TV show is to discuss religion, why is he debating with Muslims which are not concerned with Christianity? As I've said, debate and discussion are completely different.

7. I agree but that doesn't open the door to religious intolerance and conflict.

All belief systems are not equal.
And without specifics, it's difficult to discuss this further.

It is possible to debate religion, because it's a tremendously complex issue. It's even better to discuss it. In fact, if not for the thoughtful discussions of religion and religious philosophy, you wouldn't be living in a country that offers such individual freedoms.

Discuss - really?
OK - let's have a stab at this...

So, discuss Cal, why you have stated that all belief systems are not equal. Could you define 'Equal' in this case?

I've been over this.

Expressing or advancing a position of "no religion" is no more enlightened or distinguished than discussing a position "of religion."


The difference you're failing to see is that claiming people should keep religion to themselves is not advocating a position of no religion. There's a difference between saying "keep it to yourself" and "don't do it."

I'm interested in knowing how saying we should keep our religion to ourselves can be interpreted at "hostile atheism?" He's not telling people not to believe in their religions, just that they should be kept to themselves. He needn't even be atheist to make that statement - anybody of any religion could make that argument.
He's telling people to shut up.

That's chilling the 1st Amendment.

1. If they are having heated religious debates, obviously it is being taken to a personal or at least an emotional level. It doesn't really matter what exactly was said, just enough to obviously offend someone and denounce something. If it turns out nothing it was the media that construed the situation, then the example gets thrown out the window. Religion still shouldn't be pressed upon people. If it was the minister's TV show, how was he pressing his religion on them?

If it was the minister's TV show, how was he pressing his religion on them?

Either he invited them on the show or he tried to convince them otherwise on the phone. Allowing a debate to happen on air, basically.

He's telling people to shut up.

That's chilling the 1st Amendment.

As well as threats, racism, etc.

Either he invited them on the show or he tried to convince them otherwise on the phone. Allowing a debate to happen on air, basically.So they voluntarily accepted his invitation to debate on the air, with full opportunity to argue their side, and he's forcing his religion on them?

Please defend that position, I'm all ears.

So they voluntarily accepted his invitation to debate on the air, with full opportunity to argue their side, and he's forcing his religion on them?

Please defend that position, I'm all ears.

What other way could they have gotten on there and gotten into heated debates with him? Either way, you shouldn't be debating religion. I never said the Muslims were right, don't think that's my position.

What other way could they have gotten on there and gotten into heated debates with him? Either way, you shouldn't be debating religion. I never said the Muslims were right, don't think that's my position.
No, you claimed that the pastor FORCED his religious views on them.

That's absurd on its face.

No, you claimed that the pastor FORCED his religious views on them.

That's absurd on its face.

I said try to convince, not force. In debate you convince, not force.

So, discuss Cal, why you have stated that all belief systems are not equal. Could you define 'Equal' in this case?

How about this- Islam is a violent death cult started by a child molesting, violent, lunatic who was afraid of dogs.

Mutilating women, beating women, honor killings, and engaging in a religion that endorses places all "non-believers" into forced slavery is not at good as the other mainstream religions. The good displayed by some Muslims comes about because of some of the individuals who chose to practice it and make it their own, not the teachings.

How about this- Islam is a violent death cult started by a child molesting, violent, lunatic who was afraid of dogs.

Mutilating women, beating women, honor killings, and engaging in a religion that endorses places all "non-believers" into forced slavery is not at good as the other mainstream religions. The good displayed by some Muslims comes about because of some of the individuals who chose to practice it and make it their own, not the teachings.

So, Cal, what about your statement engages 'discussion'? You were the one that thought "All belief systems are not equal. And without specifics, it's difficult to discuss this further."

So, these are the specifics that you wanted to discuss? That the majority of the approximately 1.5 billion Muslims are engaging in the practices you describe above?

It is possible to debate religion, because it's a tremendously complex issue. It's even better to discuss it. In fact, if not for the thoughtful discussions of religion and religious philosophy, you wouldn't be living in a country that offers such individual freedoms.

Does your statement regarding the 'good' of the Islamic religion really invite discussion or provoke debate?

Well, once again - to try to 'discuss' rather than 'debate'. How do you think Taoist Monks view Christianity - do you believe that from their viewpoint (since you have pulled this discussion into one of 'viewpoint'), that the past actions and ideals of Christianity would hold up well to Islam? Would their view of Christianity look similar to your view of Islam?

I also have noticed a couple of times you have mentioned Mohammad's views on dogs, do you also wonder about the legends of St. Patrick and driving the snakes out of Ireland? Was it a morbid fear that drove St. Patrick in this instance? Or do you bring this up to 'color' Mohammad among pet lovers?

So, Cal, what about your statement engages 'discussion'?
None. I'm not in the mood- but if someone else wants to, I have no problem with that, nor do I think they should be beaten about the head for accepting such an invitation.

Also, I'm not a moral relativist, a philosophy or a set of values are judged both by what they set out to do as well as what they accomplish.

None. I'm not in the mood- but if someone else wants to, I have no problem with that, nor do I think they should be beaten about the head for accepting such an invitation.

Also, I'm not a moral relativist, a philosophy or a set of values are judged both by what they set out to do as well as what they accomplish.

So, you just threw out that rather provoking statement for what reason? More argument? You state it doesn't encourage discussion, so what sort of 'invitation' is it?

And by your statement it seems that we should look at all religions, not based only on 'what they say' but what practitioners of that religion interpret 'what they say' and how then they act on it... right?

So, you just threw out that rather provoking statement for what reason? More argument? You state it doesn't encourage discussion, so what sort of 'invitation' is it?
Because I think it's funny that the cult leader was afraid of dogs, so it's part of the teaching now. I think it's a great way to demonstrate how Islam is a cult established by a lunatic narcissist who wanted to be personally worshiped than this point.

Have you seen how the Muslims treat dogs in the East, it pisses me off.
Not mention the treatment of women and infidels.

And by your statement it seems that we should look at all religions, not based only on 'what they say' but what practitioners of that religion interpret 'what they say' and how then they act on it... right?
You can take it into account, but you don't view isolated incidences the same as the mainstream or reasonable people. You don't base Christianity on the work of the handful of "God Hates :q:q:qs" people, no more than you evaluate the work of the post office by the isolated shooters that have been identified as such as well.

So, the 1.5+ billion people who are muslims are all alike - they all follow the same "Mutilating women, beating women, honor killings, and engaging in a religion that endorses places all "non-believers" into forced slavery" philosophy?

Wouldn't it follow that, just as in Christianity, where, as you stated, we shouldn't base "Christianity on the work of the handful of "God Hates [blank] people", you shouldn't be basing Islam on the work of the unreasonable Islamic followers Cal? I would think you would be hearing of a lot more problems in the islamic world if there was anything above a minority that participated in all of the items you mentioned above. However, I will give you the way that they have historically treated women is appalling. That is changing, albeit slowly, too slowly. Christians weren't shining lights regarding that for centuries either, but finally, things have improved.

So, the 1.5+ billion people who are muslims are all alike - they all follow the same "Mutilating women, beating women, honor killings, and engaging in a religion that endorses places all "non-believers" into forced slavery" philosophy?

Wouldn't it follow that, just as in Christianity, where, as you stated, we shouldn't base "Christianity on the work of the handful of "God Hates [blank] people", you shouldn't be basing Islam on the work of the unreasonable Islamic followers Cal? I would think you would be hearing of a lot more problems in the islamic world if there was anything above a minority that participated in all of the items you mentioned above. However, I will give you the way that they have historically treated women is appalling. That is changing, albeit slowly, too slowly. Christians weren't shining lights regarding that for centuries either, but finally, things have improved.
It is quite well known that according to modern, current muslim teaching, if you're a good muslim then you should be on a jihad.

And the worst Christian practices ever toward women don't hold a candle to the current muslim practices toward women. Your attempts to equivocate fall on deaf ears.

It is quite well known that according to modern, current muslim teaching, if you're a good muslim then you should be on a jihad.

And the worst Christian practices ever toward women don't hold a candle to the current muslim practices toward women. Your attempts to equivocate fall on deaf ears.

like until the 1900's women were property?

and it's only quite well known in your little propagandist christian circle.

like until the 1900's women were property?
Really? Are you saying that was universal to Christianity?
Where? And if so, how/when did that change.

And were honor killings ok back then too?

Really? Are you saying that was universal to Christianity?
Where? And if so, how/when did that change.

And were honor killings ok back then too?

are you saying the tripe you spew is universal to islam?

are you saying the tripe you spew is universal to islam?

You're answering a question with a question, that doesn't work.
You made a stupid charge, now support it or clarify it.

from the koran

"As for those who lead a righteous life, MALE OR FEMALE. while believing, t hey enter Paradise; without the slightest injustice"

" Anyone who works righteousness, MALE OR FEMALE, while believing, we will surely grant them a happy life in this world, and we will surely pay them their full recompense for their righteous works."

[40:40] Whoever commits a sin is requited for just that, and whoever works righteousness - MALE OR FEMALE - while believing, these will enter Paradise wherein they receive provisions without any limits.


from the bible

2:11 Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection.

2:12 But I don't permit a woman to teach, nor to exercise authority over a man, but to be in quietness.

2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

2:14 Adam wasn't deceived, but the woman, being deceived, has fallen into disobedience;

2:15 but she will be saved through her child-bearing, if they continue in faith, love, and sanctification with sobriety.

You seemed to have made a mistake and posted a big bunch of bullcrap without any context instead of answer the question you were asked.

I'll keep waiting for you to answer the question.

from the koran

"As for those who lead a righteous life, MALE OR FEMALE. while believing, t hey enter Paradise; without the slightest injustice"

" Anyone who works righteousness, MALE OR FEMALE, while believing, we will surely grant them a happy life in this world, and we will surely pay them their full recompense for their righteous works."

[40:40] Whoever commits a sin is requited for just that, and whoever works righteousness - MALE OR FEMALE - while believing, these will enter Paradise wherein they receive provisions without any limits.


from the bible

2:11 Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection.

2:12 But I don't permit a woman to teach, nor to exercise authority over a man, but to be in quietness.

2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

2:14 Adam wasn't deceived, but the woman, being deceived, has fallen into disobedience;

2:15 but she will be saved through her child-bearing, if they continue in faith, love, and sanctification with sobriety.
Any ignoramus can take the Bible out of context.

Thusly:

Psalm 14:1 - ...there is no God. :rolleyes:

You don't even understand the verses you quoted.

Please find in Christian teachings where women are supposed to have their cl**s cut off.

and it's only quite well known in your little propagandist christian circle.Please find the Bible verse where it says women are property.

i answered your bs, now show where your previous statements against islam are true.

Please find the Bible verse where it says women are property.

you and shag state how america is based on christian values. until the 1900"s in law women were deemed property.

you and shag state how america is based on christian values. until the 1900"s in law women were deemed property.
Correlation does not equal causation. Please show me the text and citation of the law, and where the basis for it exists in the Bible.

In short, you need to make your case.

Until you do that, you FAIL.

i answered your bs, now show where your previous statements against islam are true.
You didn't answer crap. You c/p'd some verses you found on some ignorant website that couldn't explain the Bible if it had an entire Seminary helping it.

you and shag state how america is based on christian values. until the 1900"s in law women were deemed property.
So..."women as property" is somehow "christian values"? That makes no logical sense. Not too surprising considering who wrote it. :rolleyes:

Just because the country was founded on Christian values doesn't mean that all laws reflect Christian values. You are making a fallacy of division (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_division) argument.A fallacy of division occurs when one reasons logically that something true of a thing must also be true of all or some of its parts.
Even if your argument were somehow logical, it still doesn't prove that the idea of women as property is inherent to Christianity as a whole, as opposed to a unique, unorthodox interpretation of Christianity.

i answered your bs,
Incorrect. You responded by saying something I posted earlier was BS. Fair enough. However, I didn't ask any "BS", I simply asked you to support or clarify your statement. Something you've yet to do.

I'll wait.

now show where your previous statements against islam are true.
We'll get to that next, in order, but support your statement first.
But, in preparation, I should ask, do you want text or video about Islam?

hrmwrm isn't any different from the Jagger-bot, except he spews more hate.

Apparently this is the best the atheist community can do by way of debate - misdirect, spam/quote, spew hate, and generally annoy.

the declaration of sentiments, 1848

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one portion of the family of man to assume among the people of the earth a position different from that which they have hitherto occupied, but one to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes that impel them to such a course.

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men and women are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of those who suffer from it to refuse allegiance to it, and to insist upon the institution of a new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and, accordingly, all experience has shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they were accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their duty to throw off such government and to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of the women under this government, and such is now the necessity which constrains them to demand the equal station to which they are entitled.

The history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has never permitted her to exercise her inalienable right to the elective franchise.

He has compelled her to submit to law in the formation of which she had no voice.

He has withheld from her rights which are given to the most ignorant and degraded men, both natives and foreigners.

Having deprived her of this first right as a citizen, the elective franchise, thereby leaving her without representation in the halls of legislation, he has oppressed her on all sides.

He has made her, if married, in the eye of the law, civilly dead. He has taken from her all right in property, even to the wages she earns.

He has made her morally, an irresponsible being, as she can commit many crimes with impunity, provided they be done in the presence of her husband. In the covenant of marriage, she is compelled to promise obedience to her husband, he becoming, to all intents and purposes, her master-the law giving him power to deprive her of her liberty and to administer chastisement.

He has so framed the laws of divorce, as to what shall be the proper causes and, in case of separation, to whom the guardianship of the children shall be given, as to be wholly regardless of the happiness of the women-the law, in all cases, going upon a false supposition of the supremacy of man and giving all power into his hands.

After depriving her of all rights as a married woman, if single and the owner of property, he has taxed her to support a government which recognizes her only when her property can be made profitable to it.

He has monopolized nearly all the profitable employments, and from those she is permitted to follow, she receives but a scanty remuneration. He closes against her all the avenues to wealth and distinction which he considers most honorable to himself. As a teacher of theology, medicine, or law, she is not known.

He has denied her the facilities for obtaining a thorough education, all colleges being closed against her.

He allows her in church, as well as state, but a subordinate position, claiming apostolic authority for her exclusion from the ministry, and, with some exceptions, from any public participation in the affairs of the church.

He has created a false public sentiment by giving to the world a different code of morals for men and women, by which moral delinquencies which exclude women from society are not only tolerated but deemed of little account in man.

He has usurped the prerogative of Jehovah himself, claiming it as his right to assign for her a sphere of action, when that belongs to her conscience and to her God.

He has endeavored, in every way that he could, to destroy her confidence in her own powers, to lessen her self-respect, and to make her willing to lead a dependent and abject life.

Now, in view of this entire disfranchisement of one-half the people of this country, their social and religious degradation, in view of the unjust laws above mentioned, and because women do feel themselves aggrieved, oppressed, and fraudulently deprived of their most sacred rights, we insist that they have immediate admission to all the rights and privileges which belong to them as citizens of the United States.

In entering upon the great work before us, we anticipate no small amount of misconception, misrepresentation, and ridicule; but we shall use every instrumentality within our power to effect our object. We shall employ agents, circulate tracts, petition the state and national legislatures, and endeavor to enlist the pulpit and the press in our behalf. We hope this Convention will be followed by a series of conventions embracing every part of the country.

Resolutions
Whereas, the great precept of nature is conceded to be that “man shall pursue his own true and substantial happiness.” Blackstone in his Commentaries remarks that this law of nature, being coeval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is, of course, superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries and at all times; no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this, and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their validity, and all their authority, mediately and immediately, from this original; therefore,

Resolved, That such laws as conflict, in any way, with the true and substantial happiness of woman, are contrary to the great precept of nature and of no validity, for this is superior in obligation to any other.

Resolved, that all laws which prevent woman from occupying such a station in society as her conscience shall dictate, or which place her in a position inferior to that of man, are contrary to the great precept of nature and therefore of no force or authority.

Resolved, that woman is man's equal, was intended to be so by the Creator, and the highest good of the race demands that she should be recognized as such.

Resolved, that the women of this country ought to be enlightened in regard to the laws under which they live, that they may no longer publish their degradation by declaring themselves satisfied with their present position, nor their ignorance, by asserting that they have all the rights they want.

Resolved, that inasmuch as man, while claiming for himself intellectual superiority, does accord to woman moral superiority, it is preeminently his duty to encourage her to speak and teach, as she has an opportunity, in all religious assemblies.

Resolved, that the same amount of virtue, delicacy, and refinement of behavior that is required of woman in the social state also be required of man, and the same transgressions should be visited with equal severity on both man and woman.

Resolved, that the objection of indelicacy and impropriety, which is so often brought against woman when she addresses a public audience, comes with a very ill grace from those who encourage, by their attendance, her appearance on the stage, in the concert, or in feats of the circus.

Resolved, that woman has too long rested satisfied in the circumscribed limits which corrupt customs and a perverted application of the Scriptures have marked out for her, and that it is time she should move in the enlarged sphere which her great Creator has assigned her.

Resolved, that it is the duty of the women of this country to secure to themselves their sacred right to the elective franchise.

Resolved, that the equality of human rights results necessarily from the fact of the identity of the race in capabilities and responsibilities.

Resolved, that the speedy success of our cause depends upon the zealous and untiring efforts of both men and women for the overthrow of the monopoly of the pulpit, and for the securing to woman an equal participation with men in the various trades, professions, and commerce.

Resolved, therefore, that, being invested by the Creator with the same capabilities and same consciousness of responsibility for their exercise, it is demonstrably the right and duty of woman, equally with man, to promote every righteous cause by every righteous means; and especially in regard to the great subjects of morals and religion, it is self-evidently her right to participate with her brother in teaching them, both in private and in public, by writing and by speaking, by any instrumentalities proper to be used, and in any assemblies proper to be held; and this being a self-evident truth growing out of the divinely implanted principles of human nature, any custom or authority adverse to it, whether modern or wearing the hoary sanction of antiquity, is to be regarded as a self-evident falsehood, and at war with mankind.



was it universal? at one time. when did it change? i don't believe it has completely changed. some still prefer even the traditional wedding vows of LOVE,HONOR,OBEY.




St. Jerome, a 4th-century Latin father of the Christian church, said: "Woman is the gate of the devil, the path of wickedness, the sting of the serpent, in a word a perilous object." Thomas Aquinas, the 13th-century Christian theologian, said that woman was "created to be man's helpmeet, but her unique role is in conception . . . since for other purposes men would be better assisted by other men."

need a little more damning evidence from within the church itself?
if things were hunky dory, there wouldn't have been the need for NAWSA.
here, i'll spell that out for you
NATIONAL AMERICAN WOMEN SUFFRAGE ASSOCIATION.

hrmwrm isn't any different from the Jagger-bot, except he spews more hate.

Apparently this is the best the atheist community can do by way of debate - misdirect, spam/quote, spew hate, and generally annoy.

and you're the best the christian right can do. i feel sorry for you. you seem to keep interjecting with stupid quips like jagger-bot. and you don't even finish debates you get into either. tight spot, just quit. shag did the same in the id thread as well. couldn't make your claims stand, so you quit. or you wait for someone else to come bail you out. check it out. my post was to fossten, then calabrio jumps in . gonna finish YOUR arguements fossten?
what a moron.

hrmwrm, your post (#47) contained 1772 words, only 86 of which came from you. That is 4.85% of the words in that post that came from you. Are you going to revert back to your dishonest "wall 'o' text" type posts again?

Resolved, that woman has too long rested satisfied in the circumscribed limits which corrupt customs and a perverted application of the Scriptures have marked out for her, and that it is time she should move in the enlarged sphere which her great Creator has assigned her.

This only shows that this group thought that the limitations on them were due to a perverted application of Scripture. It, in no way, shows that the country was actually founding on "perverted" interpretations of Scripture, let alone that the idea of "women as property" is somehow universal in Christianity (which was the original argument here that you seem to be getting away from).

In short, all you are doing to prove your point is citing mere assertions of others that are not backed up (as you have shown them, anyway) and are irrelevant to the original point.

St. Jerome, a 4th-century Latin father of the Christian church, said: "Woman is the gate of the devil, the path of wickedness, the sting of the serpent, in a word a perilous object."

It is clear that the line you are quoting is talking about Eve. How does that have anything to do with the idea that "women are property" is somehow universally applicable to Christianity?

Oh, wait; it doesn't. You are misdirecting and in doing so showing your notorious lack of any intellectual integrity.

Thomas Aquinas, the 13th-century Christian theologian, said that woman was "created to be man's helpmeet, but her unique role is in conception . . . since for other purposes men would be better assisted by other men."

This quote is clearly talking about the unique role that women play in conception. How does that prove that Christianity views women as "property"? You just can't stay on topic, can you. :rolleyes:

need a little more damning evidence from within the church itself?

How about we just go for some relevant evidence. A little primary evidence (Scripture) would be nice as well (as opposed to the mere assertions and views of others). You seem incapable of doing that. You are merely trying to smear Christianity in general here and not staying on topic. That, once again, shows you to be incapable of an honest debate and a hack who is only interested in smearing Christianity.

and you're the best the christian right can do. i feel sorry for you. you seem to keep interjecting with stupid quips like jagger-bot. and you don't even finish debates you get into either. tight spot, just quit. shag did the same in the id thread as well. couldn't make your claims stand, so you quit. or you wait for someone else to come bail you out. check it out. my post was to fossten, then calabrio jumps in . gonna finish YOUR arguements fossten?
what a moron.

How about you stop dishonestly smearing us. I was very clear in that thread as to why I left (I was very busy with finals and term papers at the time). You are spinning and distorting the truth to smear here and you know it. I had also left that thread after showing you to be a hack who could only cut and paste other peoples arguments in large and technically dense chunks, often out of context, in a disingenuous attempt to avoid debate; that you were (and are) incapable of any honest debate yourself.

You are a hateful, petty little man who has no credibility in this political forum due to your dishonest and deceptive arguing tactics. You are not even staying on topic in this debate, but are only working to smear Christianity. :rolleyes:

So - Christians didn't go after women? How about the witch hunts... very 'Christian'... And, lets say 50,000 deaths...

Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live; every one, man or woman, actually guilty of witchcraft, was to be put to death. The sorceress is merely named because women were more addicted to this practice than men. (Exodus Ch 22 v 18)

Witch burning happened throughout Europe - across political and geographic boundaries. And the victims were almost always women... It was a church backed initiative. Christian religions, both catholic and protestant supported witch burning.

Brian Levack's book The Witch-Hunt in Early Modern Europe arrives at roughly similar conclusions. Levack "surveyed regional studies and found that there were approximately 110,000 witch trials. Levack focused on recorded trials, not executions, because in many cases we have evidence that a trial occurred but no indication of its outcomes. On average, 48% of trials ended in an execution, [and] therefore he estimated 60,000 witches died. This is slightly higher than 48% to reflect the fact that Germany, the center of the persecution, killed more than 48% of its witches." (Gibbons, Recent Developments.) [From "The European Witch-Hunts, c. 1450-1750 and Witch-Hunts Today; Researched and written by Adam Jones.]

...for the most reasonable modern estimates suggest perhaps 100,000 trials between 1450 and 1750, with something between 40,000 and 50,000 executions (Briggs, Witches & Neighbours, p. 8.)

and jihad has many meanings (http://www.cqpress.com/context/articles/epr_jihad.html) - just as crusade does.

and you're the best the christian right can do. i feel sorry for you. you seem to keep interjecting with stupid quips like jagger-bot. and you don't even finish debates you get into either. tight spot, just quit. shag did the same in the id thread as well. couldn't make your claims stand, so you quit. or you wait for someone else to come bail you out. check it out. my post was to fossten, then calabrio jumps in . gonna finish YOUR arguements fossten?
what a moron.
Wow. What a response - the typical "NO U!" :rolleyes:

So - Christians didn't go after women? How about the witch hunts... very 'Christian'... And, lets say 50,000 deaths...

Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live; every one, man or woman, actually guilty of witchcraft, was to be put to death. The sorceress is merely named because women were more addicted to this practice than men. (Exodus Ch 22 v 18)

Witch burning happened throughout Europe - across political and geographic boundaries. And the victims were almost always women... It was a church backed initiative. Christian religions, both catholic and protestant supported witch burning.

Brian Levack's book The Witch-Hunt in Early Modern Europe arrives at roughly similar conclusions. Levack "surveyed regional studies and found that there were approximately 110,000 witch trials. Levack focused on recorded trials, not executions, because in many cases we have evidence that a trial occurred but no indication of its outcomes. On average, 48% of trials ended in an execution, [and] therefore he estimated 60,000 witches died. This is slightly higher than 48% to reflect the fact that Germany, the center of the persecution, killed more than 48% of its witches." (Gibbons, Recent Developments.) [From "The European Witch-Hunts, c. 1450-1750 and Witch-Hunts Today; Researched and written by Adam Jones.]

...for the most reasonable modern estimates suggest perhaps 100,000 trials between 1450 and 1750, with something between 40,000 and 50,000 executions (Briggs, Witches & Neighbours, p. 8.)

and jihad has many meanings (http://www.cqpress.com/context/articles/epr_jihad.html) - just as crusade does.And how many witch burnings are going on now? You really don't know the difference between Exodus and the rest of the Bible, do you? Are we all going to hell if we eat pork as well? Thanks for displaying your gross ignorance of the Bible for all the rest of us to see.

And I have to yet again object to your blanket inclusion of catholics into Christianity. There are distinct, extreme differences, which I've taken great pains to point out in another thread.

You really don't know the difference between Exodus and the rest of the Bible, do you? Are we all going to hell if we eat pork as well? Thanks for displaying your gross ignorance of the Bible for all the rest of us to see.
So, lets look at Exodus... Legend has it that Moses wrote Exodus, it gives us the story of the 'exodus' from Egypt. It gave us Passover, the 10 commandments, burning bushes, the parting of the red sea... We pick and choose Foss?

But, you know, if you want to discount Exodus - please do foss, but I will call you on it in the future...

And many Jews still do follow the dietary laws set in Exodus.

How about...
Deuteronomy Ch 18 v 10-12
There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch. Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer.vFor all that do these things are an abomination unto the Lord: and because of these abominations the Lord thy God doth drive them out from before thee.

Or does Deuteronomy not count too? ;)

No witch burnings now - I was answering your little tidbit in post #31
And the worst Christian practices ever toward women don't hold a candle to the current muslim practices toward women. Your attempts to equivocate fall on deaf ears.

Christian religions at their worst did a great job of holding that candle next to the Muslims regarding their treatment of women in the past.

And I have to yet again object to your blanket inclusion of catholics into Christianity. There are distinct, extreme differences, which I've taken great pains to point out in another thread.

And Catholicism is a Christian 'religion' as defined by the rest of the world. However, if you toss them out - Christianity moves to 2nd place in total population of religion in the world Foss - behind Islam. You can't have Christianity sit at the top of the heap - as you have stated in the past, if you don't include catholics. And how about Mormons - should we toss them as well? Got a list for us foss - what religions count as 'Christian' and which don't? I am sure that 2 billion Christians world wide is going to dwindle quickly... Just take out Catholics and it is down to just 1 billion. Toss out the rest you probably have 'problems' with and your 'true' Christianity probably is 1/2 the size of Islam. And would only constitute about 1/2 the population of the US. (http://religions.pewforum.org/reports)

But, back to the ethical and humane treatment of women... Heck, the real culprits, as far as sheer numbers of witch burnings, were the protestants in Germany - not the Catholics.

Again, Fox, you don't understand the difference between Old Testament Law for the Jews and the rest of the Bible. But keep sputtering, it amuses me. Your entire premise of witch killing is nothing but a straw man that has nothing to do with Christianity.

But hey - maybe I'm missing the point. Is there some personal reason why you don't like the Bible's stance on witches? :rolleyes:

And Christianity isn't a religion. Catholicism, Mormonism, et al, are religions. There's a difference. Just because mainstream ignorance has lumped them together doesn't make it so.

christianity is a religion. catholicism, young earth creationists, protestant, etc, are different sects of the religion.

This only shows that this group thought that the limitations on them were due to a perverted application of Scripture. It, in no way, shows that the country was actually founding on "perverted" interpretations of Scripture, let alone that the idea of "women as property" is somehow universal in Christianity (which was the original argument here that you seem to be getting away from).


uh, no, the original arguement that fossten doesn't prove and i only supplied an example of was

"And the worst Christian practices ever toward women don't hold a candle to the current muslim practices toward women"

How about we just go for some relevant evidence. A little primary evidence (Scripture) would be nice as well (as opposed to the mere assertions and views of others). You seem incapable of doing that. You are merely trying to smear Christianity in general here and not staying on topic. That, once again, shows you to be incapable of an honest debate and a hack who is only interested in smearing Christianity.

tell you what. since you have a predertimined idea of me, you tell me how to answer foss's statement above without "smearing" christianity. to do it your way, means that it can't be answered.

Again, Fox, you don't understand the difference between Old Testament Law for the Jews and the rest of the Bible. But keep sputtering, it amuses me. Your entire premise of witch killing is nothing but a straw man that has nothing to do with Christianity.

But hey - maybe I'm missing the point. Is there some personal reason why you don't like the Bible's stance on witches? :rolleyes:

And Christianity isn't a religion. Catholicism, Mormonism, et al, are religions. There's a difference. Just because mainstream ignorance has lumped them together doesn't make it so.

However, some of old Testament Law isn't just for Jews - right - the 10 Commandments for instance.

I bet you have used many parts of old Testament law when you needed it to back up an assertion of yours.

How convenient that you can pick and choose - just like you can pick and choose which denominations are real 'Christians' and which aren't... And you can move them in and out of the fold when you need to. Need more Christians to prove that Christianity is larger than Islam - we'll add Catholics. Don't like what the Catholic religion has done in the past - we will exclude them from Christianity.

Certainly 'Christians' of many denominations at the time used those bible references to commit gendercide. You asked for an example, along with biblical verse, I gave both. Now we have to make sure it fits within the magical 'Foss' definition of both?

I don't think so...

And, yes, anytime a group of people, just because of blind prejudice, is singled out for mass murder, it is upsetting. Witch burning is one of those times were a strong group (men who belonged to Christian religions) set out to kill members of another group - in this case women. Women who may not have embraced Christianity the 'correct' way in the view of those men.

Please people this kind of dicussing should not be on a car forum.
Give your head a shake and stick to the cars.

Please people this kind of dicussing should not be on a car forum.
Give your head a shake and stick to the cars.

Well said dude - but be careful, when I popped up here and started making that observation I got put through the ringer for it. Apparently the insults only come from the Left, and anything that comes from the Right is ok because the Left started it :)

christianity is a religion. catholicism, young earth creationists, protestant, etc, are different sects of the religion.
You are incorrect. Jesus Himself railed against religion.

However, some of old Testament Law isn't just for Jews - right - the 10 Commandments for instance.

I bet you have used many parts of old Testament law when you needed it to back up an assertion of yours.

How convenient that you can pick and choose - just like you can pick and choose which denominations are real 'Christians' and which aren't... And you can move them in and out of the fold when you need to. Need more Christians to prove that Christianity is larger than Islam - we'll add Catholics. Don't like what the Catholic religion has done in the past - we will exclude them from Christianity.

Certainly 'Christians' of many denominations at the time used those bible references to commit gendercide. You asked for an example, along with biblical verse, I gave both. Now we have to make sure it fits within the magical 'Foss' definition of both?

I don't think so...

And, yes, anytime a group of people, just because of blind prejudice, is singled out for mass murder, it is upsetting. Witch burning is one of those times were a strong group (men who belonged to Christian religions) set out to kill members of another group - in this case women. Women who may not have embraced Christianity the 'correct' way in the view of those men.You can make all the claims you want, but the fact remains - you don't understand the Bible, nor have you read it.

Interesting that you include the word Christians in quotes there. I guess even you realize that those people were not real Christians. Thanks for proving my point.

And you can be snarky all you want, but my 'magical definition' comes from the Bible. Your attempts to conflate Christianity and murder are a failure.

Please people this kind of dicussing should not be on a car forum.
Give your head a shake and stick to the cars.In case you didn't notice, this is a political forum INSIDE a car forum.

But thanks for telling us what you think, troll. Maybe if you would stick to the car forum you wouldn't get your pink panties in a wad over what we're discussing, hmm? :rolleyes:

You can make all the claims you want, but the fact remains - you don't understand the Bible, nor have you read it.

Interesting that you include the word Christians in quotes there. I guess even you realize that those people were not real Christians. Thanks for proving my point.

And you can be snarky all you want, but my 'magical definition' comes from the Bible. Your attempts to conflate Christianity and murder are a failure.

I have and continue to read the Bible - however much you don't want to believe that Foss - once again I could take a picture of my much sticky noted and highlighted bible (result of many, many study groups) in front of the computer screen, like I did Atlas Shrugged, but it won't convince you.

What I find really interesting is your ability to create Christianity in your own image and on your own terms, as well as reconstruct the Bible, to fit your purpose at the time.

Oh, the quotes are because I was talking about 'Christians' and needed a way to indicate that it was looking at Christians within that time frame of witch burning. Those views are different than current day views of Christianity, but were very 'christian' in their day and age. Just as all religions change over time. Current viewpoints of Christianity could change markedly in the future.

Please people this kind of dicussing should not be on a car forum.
Give your head a shake and stick to the cars.

Ah, Jake - a bit of advice - abandon all hope - ye who enter here...

Oh, the quotes are because I was talking about 'Christians' and needed a way to indicate that it was looking at Christians within that time frame of witch burning. Those views are different than current day views of Christianity, but were very 'christian' in their day and age. Just as all religions change over time. Current viewpoints of Christianity could change markedly in the future.
No, you are being QUITE dishonest. What you 'needed' was a way to tie Christianity to witch burning so you could paint it as an 'evil religion.'

You weren't 'talking about Christians', you were SMEARING Christianity.

It was a church backed initiative. Christian religions, both catholic and protestant supported witch burning. - Post 51

Christian religions at their worst did a great job of holding that candle next to the Muslims regarding their treatment of women in the past. - Post 54

Witch burning is one of those times were a strong group (men who belonged to Christian religions) set out to kill members of another group - Post 59

I have very specifically used 'religion' throughout this argument Foss.

No, you are being QUITE dishonest. What you 'needed' was a way to tie Christianity to witch burning so you could paint it as an 'evil religion.'

You weren't 'talking about Christians', you were SMEARING Christianity.

Christians of the past were often 'evil,' by current definition. It is part of Christian history. We have hopefully changed since then. But, we have also redefined 'Christianity' along the way.

I am sure you don't follow the Christianity that was practice around the time right after Christ Foss. For one thing, they continued to practice those 'dietary' laws that you scoffed at earlier. Christianity has moved away from those laws.

Religions change with the times. Just as countries do. Just because we haven't experienced what past citizens have, doesn't make us lesser citizens or better citizens than past Americans. We are just different. Just as we are different than past Christians.

Just as you don't judge current day Germany by it's mistakes of the past... or maybe you do Foss.

You are incorrect. Jesus Himself railed against religion.

by what, creating another?. fulfilling the prophecy of messianic judaism?
but i'm just assuming an historical character for the sake of arguement here.

I guess even you realize that those people were not real Christians.

i've heard you before say many aren't christians. i guess you had best define in your terms what is to stop future confusion.

i've heard you before say many aren't christians. i guess you had best define in your terms what is to stop future confusion.

I can for you..there are three for fossten...Me.... Myself... and I.

I can for you..there are three for fossten...Me.... Myself... and I.

troll :rolleyes:

Muzzlims are SCARED TO DEATH of Christianity,,They know our religion is strong and CAN TAKE IT they have to resort to this kind of behavior,,they're weak. Goofy artists in the name of ART produce all kinds of stuff about JESUS,,GOD,,VIRGIN MARY,,ST.JOHN,,MARY MAGDALIN (sic) etc etc etc WE JUST "KEEP ON TRUCKIN' ". Muzzlims (they love it spelled that way) are also SCARED TO DEATH of the INTERNET.

Qu'ran > Bible all day.

hrmwrm, your post (#47) contained 1772 words, only 86 of which came from you. That is 4.85% of the words in that post that came from you. Are you going to revert back to your dishonest "wall 'o' text" type posts again?



This only shows that this group thought that the limitations on them were due to a perverted application of Scripture. It, in no way, shows that the country was actually founding on "perverted" interpretations of Scripture, let alone that the idea of "women as property" is somehow universal in Christianity (which was the original argument here that you seem to be getting away from).

In short, all you are doing to prove your point is citing mere assertions of others that are not backed up (as you have shown them, anyway) and are irrelevant to the original point.



It is clear that the line you are quoting is talking about Eve. How does that have anything to do with the idea that "women are property" is somehow universally applicable to Christianity?

Oh, wait; it doesn't. You are misdirecting and in doing so showing your notorious lack of any intellectual integrity.



This quote is clearly talking about the unique role that women play in conception. How does that prove that Christianity views women as "property"? You just can't stay on topic, can you. :rolleyes:



How about we just go for some relevant evidence. A little primary evidence (Scripture) would be nice as well (as opposed to the mere assertions and views of others). You seem incapable of doing that. You are merely trying to smear Christianity in general here and not staying on topic. That, once again, shows you to be incapable of an honest debate and a hack who is only interested in smearing Christianity.



they didn't "think" these things, they were already pevalent. being excluded from a vote, any property was the husbands upon marriage, etc. apparently you need your hand held and guided to make a distinction.

as for scripture, i posted a passage from timothy. i'll expand it a little longer, so you get the full implication.

2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

2:6 who gave himself as a ransom for all; the testimony in its own times;

2:7 to which I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I am telling the truth in Christ, not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.

2:8 I desire therefore that the men in every place pray, lifting up holy hands without wrath and doubting.

2:9 In the same way, that women also adorn themselves in decent clothing, with modesty and propriety; not just with braided hair, gold, pearls, or expensive clothing;

2:10 but (which becomes women professing godliness) with good works.

2:11 Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection.

2:12 But I don't permit a woman to teach, nor to exercise authority over a man, but to be in quietness.

2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

2:14 Adam wasn't deceived, but the woman, being deceived, has fallen into disobedience;

2:15 but she will be saved through her child-bearing, if they continue in faith, love, and sanctification with sobriety.


so, dress up, shut up, and be subjagated by men, and bear children. 2.5 and 2.7 make it clear we are talking about christianity.


a little more.

3:1 This is a faithful saying: if a man seeks the office of an overseer, he desires a good work.

3:2 The overseer therefore must be without reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, modest, hospitable, good at teaching;

3:3 not a drinker, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous;

3:4 one who rules his own house well, having children in subjection with all reverence;

3:5 (but if a man doesn't know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the assembly of God?)

hmmm. MAN rule HIS house.

these are quotes from the bible, and the bible teachings. and when i posted them up before, the man who can pull a line out of the bible to back up his claims couldn't pull up any to refute these lines, so i stand by my statement it is prevalent in christianity.

after all, the bible is truth, and these are the teachings of the bible?
to disagree with them would mean you're not christian.

I guess we know who rules your house. If you even have a woman.

I guess we know who rules your house. If you even have a woman.

:lol: Dont go around acting like your religion is the best. I think its been said enough that christians and sympathy (understanding) are like water and oil

And Christianity isn't a religion.

How should one define it then?

How should one define it then?

Fossten created the title for this thread which is: "Muslims show Christian minister whose is religion of peace" which implies that he thinks Christianity is a religion. He then states in the very same thread that Christianity is not a religion. It would appear that Fossten is not very consistent in his ideas, if you had not already noticed that.

:lol: Dont go around acting like your religion is the best. I think its been said enough that christians and sympathy (understanding) are like water and oil

Apparently you don't know any Christians. Speaking from ignorance once again; seems to be a pattern for you.:rolleyes:

the more accurate analogy (meaning actually having some truth to it) would be athiests are to religious tolerance like water is to oil. ;)

Fossten created the title for this thread which is: "Muslims show Christian minister whose is religion of peace" which implies that he thinks Christianity is a religion. He then states in the very same thread that Christianity is not a religion. It would appear that Fossten is not very consistent in his ideas, if you had not already noticed that.

Actually, it is riffing off the idea that Islam is the "religion of peace" that is constantly being perpetuated. He is being facetious to illustrate the absurdity of the claim. But context never stops intolerant athiests looking to smear a Christian now, does it.:rolleyes:

I guess we know who rules your house. If you even have a woman.

and you say i spew hatred. and what was intended by this? i was posting about christian ideals within the bible. i didn't mention anything about my life. you know what they say about assumptions.

although after reading that, and what i posted about within the bible, and you being the good christian, i would pose that statement towards you.

and you say i spew hatred. and what was intended by this? i was posting about christian ideals within the bible. i didn't mention anything about my life. you know what they say about assumptions.

although after reading that, and what i posted about within the bible, and you being the good christian, i would pose that statement towards you.
Considering you're a godless heathen, I wouldn't expect you to understand a)Christian doctrines/principles or b) the difference between Islam and Christianity.

Even if I posted a chart with the differences clearly laid out, you'd continue with your absurd, loose claims littered with copy/paste taken from bogus, Christian-hating sites with no credibility whatsoever.

It's not as though you really want to learn anything. You're just a troll, trying to make as big a nuisance of yourself as possible. You're not interested in a discussion.

you are the one not interested in discussion. i don't get anything from "christian hating" sites. my last post was directly from the bible.
i'm aware of the differences between islam and christianity. no chart is necessary.

i'm not here to be a nuisance, just somebody with a different perspective than you.(if everybody thought the same, there would be no need for this section of the forum) i don't need a supernatural entity to explain everything for me, nor do i involve myself with it's narrowly directioned propaganda.

you're just pissed i refuted the claims with your own doctrine. it's you who run from the discussion. or come in with trollish remarks as above.

how do you know if i understand christian doctrine or not? you're basing that on the fact i don't believe in god?

i'm not a christian hater. but in the first post i ever said i was atheist, YOU started to make a joke of it. so, i fight back. like you, i won't be belittled for my beliefs. i see nothing that would lead me to believe in the existence of a god.

it's you who spew hatred. look at the first 4 words of your reply. "Considering you're a godless heathen".
what do you expect in reply?
and statements like"It's not as though you really want to learn anything"

learn what? how to be like you? have you not gotten anything from all my arguements? i'm not here for conversion, nor do i expect you are.

i respect you for your commitment to your beliefs, i just wish it was reciprocal. instead you think your better than others.

you are the one not interested in discussion. i don't get anything from "christian hating" sites. my last post was directly from the bible.
i'm aware of the differences between islam and christianity. no chart is necessary.

i'm not here to be a nuisance, just somebody with a different perspective than you.(if everybody thought the same, there would be no need for this section of the forum) i don't need a supernatural entity to explain everything for me, nor do i involve myself with it's narrowly directioned propaganda.

you're just pissed i refuted the claims with your own doctrine. it's you who run from the discussion. or come in with trollish remarks as above.

how do you know if i understand christian doctrine or not? you're basing that on the fact i don't believe in god?

i'm not a christian hater. but in the first post i ever said i was atheist, YOU started to make a joke of it. so, i fight back. like you, i won't be belittled for my beliefs. i see nothing that would lead me to believe in the existence of a god.

it's you who spew hatred. look at the first 4 words of your reply. "Considering you're a godless heathen".
what do you expect in reply?
and statements like"It's not as though you really want to learn anything"

learn what? how to be like you? have you not gotten anything from all my arguements? i'm not here for conversion, nor do i expect you are.

i respect you for your commitment to your beliefs, i just wish it was reciprocal. instead you think your better than others.Hatred? How can you be insulted by being called a godless heathen, considering you've proclaimed repeatedly how proud you are of that very fact?

How can you whine about hatred, considering you have a vile, insensitive, disrespectful avatar?

Your posts are a waste of space. You know nothing of the Bible except what you can c/p from anti-Christian websites, from which you in cowardly fashion omit the links. You are no different than Jagger-bot. It's no wonder people set you to 'ignore' status. You have nothing constructive or substantive to contribute.

i have yet to come across a law that states i HAVE to believe in ANY god.
so being GODLESS is irrelevent.
i'm not whining about hatred, just pointing out how much you whine about hatred from me while you have a vile disrespectful attitude in your posting to others.
and i don't c/p from ANTI-CHRISTIAN websites, i c/p from pdf's on my computer, or non religious websites. you know, debunkers of ALL god myth beliefs.
and my avatar is a picture. it is representative of life through evolution starting in the sea. any disrespectful sentiments you glean from it are simply of your own making.

as for knowing nothing about the bible, that is something you use quite frequently against many. pretty lame attack to bolster yourself. time you got your face out of the bible and started looking into the history behind religions. you might find it's full of more faults than truths.

but i know, you'd rather hide behind the bible than be bothered to discern the truth.

If you can't link your sources, then you FAIL.

Period.

You haven't spoken anything truthful since you've been here.

Buh-bye, wasteful troll.

If you can't link your sources, then you FAIL.

Period.

You haven't spoken anything truthful since you've been here.

Buh-bye, wasteful troll.

Dont go into that BS sir.

Where is your degree in political science?

If you dont have one i dont see why you would even be posting in this forum.

Dont go into that BS sir.

Where is your degree in political science?

If you dont have one i dont see why you would even be posting in this forum.

You clearly know nothing about politics and don't display the knowledge that would be expected of someone having a political science degree. Why are you posting?

Dont go into that BS sir.

Where is your degree in political science?

If you dont have one i dont see why you would even be posting in this forum.
Translation: Africa is not a country. :rolleyes:

Have you even graduated from high school yet?

If you can't link your sources, then you FAIL.

Period.

You haven't spoken anything truthful since you've been here.

Buh-bye, wasteful troll.

like my sources in this thread? YOU don't have a bible? even i have an html version.
would you like me to link you to an online one?

these are the same trollish remarks you post continuously throughout threads.
they are without substance, and like your saying, are a NUH-UH arguement. sorry fossten, it is you who fails. you should stay out of arguements you have no substance to counter with. then you wouldn't look such a fool.

O: I respect you
Islam: LOLOLOLOLOL
O: America wants to engage you mutually as equals
Islam: ROTFLMAOLMFAOOTF

Will Islam Return Obama's 'Respect'?

By DANIEL HENNINGER, Wall Street Journal


Today is Holy Thursday for Christians and the start of Passover for Jews. This week was an opportune time for President Barack Obama to visit Istanbul's Hagia Sophia, which has been both a Byzantine church and Islamic mosque. In Turkey he spoke of seeking engagement with Islam based on "mutual respect."

The subject of this column is the status of minority faith groups, mostly Christian, living inside Islamic countries. That status is poor. In some cases it verges on extinction, after centuries of coexistence with Islam. So it is useful to review what Mr. Obama said of his goals for living with Islam:

"I know that the trust that binds the United States and Turkey has been strained, and I know that strain is shared in many places where the Muslim faith is practiced. So let me say this as clearly as I can: The United States is not, and will never be, at war with Islam. . . .

"We seek broader engagement based on mutual interest and mutual respect. We will listen carefully, we will bridge misunderstandings, and we will seek common ground. We will be respectful, even when we do not agree. We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith. . . . Many other Americans have Muslims in their families or have lived in a Muslim-majority country. I know, because I am one of them."

This is an eloquent description of ecumenical civility. In reality, the experience of Arab Christians living now amid majority Islamic populations is often repression, arrest, imprisonment and death.

Coptic Christians in Egypt have been singled out for discrimination and persecution. Muslim rioters often burn or vandalize their churches and shops.

In Turkey, the Syriac Orthodox Church (its 3,000 members speak Aramaic, the language of Christ) is battling with Turkish authorities over the lands around the Mor Gabriel monastery, built in 397.

Pakistan's recent peace deal with the Taliban in the Swat Valley puts at risk the 500 Christians still trying to live there. Many fled after Islamic extremists bombed a girls' school late last year. Pakistan has never let them buy land to build a church.


In 1995, the Saudis were allowed to build a mosque in Rome near the Vatican, but never reciprocated with a Christian church in their country. Saudi Arabia even forbids private worship at home for some one million Christian migrant workers.

In Iraq, the situation for small religious minorities has become dire. Reports emerge regularly of mortal danger there for groups that date to antiquity -- Chaldean-Assyrians, the Yazidis and Sabean Mandaeans, who revere John the Baptist. Last fall the Chaldean-Assyrian archbishop of Mosul was kidnapped and murdered. Some Iraqi Christians believe the new government won't protect them, and talk of moving into a "homeland" enclave in Nineveh. Penn State Prof. Philip Jenkins, author of "The Lost History of Christianity," calls the Iraq situation "a classic example of a church that is killed over time."

In short, the "respect" Mr. Obama promised to give Islam is going only in one direction. And he knows that.

Candidate Obama last fall sent a letter to Condoleezza Rice expressing "my concern about the safety and well-being of Iraq's Christian and other non-Muslim religious minorities." He asked what steps the U.S. was taking to protect "these communities of religious freedom." Candidate Obama said he wanted these groups represented in Iraq's governing institutions. Does President Obama believe these things?

A Bush official who worked on this problem in Iraq told me there is a school of thought that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki understands that these ancient groups are Iraq's "connective tissue," and that weaving them formally into the system could be a basis for binding together his fractured nation. If these harmless peoples can't coexist, who can?

Mr. Obama's designated ambassador to Iraq, Christopher Hill, has been criticized for subordinating human-rights issues with North Korea. That would be a mistake in the Middle East. The willingness of Islamic governments to formally protect these small Christian groups should be a litmus test of their bona fides on larger political issues.

If Islam won't let its leaders give basic rights to a handful of ancient Christians, there is no hope for what Mr. Obama proposed this week in Turkey. What his special envoy for Middle East peace, George Mitchell, wishes to achieve with Israel and its neighbors will also fail, again.

An established network of smart people exists to help Mr. Obama here, starting with the Vatican of Pope Benedict XVI and its diplomatic outreach efforts to senior Islamic clerics. The widely connected Anglican Vicar of Baghdad, Andrew White, also happens to be director of the little-known Religious Sectarian project for the U.S. Department of Defense. There are many others.

Mr. Obama should make formalized tolerance of Christian sects in the Middle East the basis for arriving at what he called "common ground" with Islam. As will be noted in churches in the rest of the world this weekend, that "common ground" was first walked in the Middle East 2,000 years ago.

i get a kick out of you fossten. you include ALL christians when you cry about things, and then state that only your belief is christian and the others aren't.

so, are these christians within your story "christians" , or is this just out to prove some whiny point and further your hatred?

Foss, would Coptic Christians and members of the Syriac Orthodox Church fall within your definition of Christian? You might want to compare their belief set against Catholics, since Catholics aren’t Christian according to your definition.

Why don't you tell me what they believe, respectively, and I'll answer your question.

Or are you not able to tell the differences?

I believe both are quite 'orthodox' and include many of the restrictions of the Catholic Church. Penance, confession to a priest, the elevation of Mary... they both split (along with others - creating Oriental orthodox churches) from the Catholic church around 450bc regarding some ideal that Jesus must be both divine and human at all times. I don't really understand that part - it is a little hard for my protestant thinking to get around...

I believe both are quite 'orthodox' and include many of the restrictions of the Catholic Church. Penance, confession to a priest, the elevation of Mary... they both split (along with others - creating Oriental orthodox churches) from the Catholic church around 450bc regarding some ideal that Jesus must be both divine and human at all times. I don't really understand that part - it is a little hard for my protestant thinking to get around...Just because their teachings are different from Catholic teachings doesn't automatically make them Christian. Popes have often contradicted one another in the past. Clearly they both can't be right.

Foss - I actually believe they are both pretty close to Catholics, as most 'orthodox' religions are. That is why I am wondering why you would consider them Christian.

Foss - I actually believe they are both pretty close to Catholics, as most 'orthodox' religions are. That is why I am wondering why you would consider them Christian.
I never said I did.

I was confused because the article you posted decries the treatment of 'Christians' (the sects mentioned above) by the local Islams. I think both hrmwrm and I are just wondering if you would consider those sects Christian? Sort of in an effort to see where your defining line is for Christian or not.

It is terrible, what those Christians have to face every day regarding practicing their faith - I was just curious to see if you really thought they were Christian.

Translation: Africa is not a country. :rolleyes:

Have you even graduated from high school yet?

Africa is a continent?

Yea. I graduated. Have you realized that the big bang happened over 13.5 billion years ago? And that this picture (http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/8004/spacebc.jpg) disproves your life?

Keep on blindly following guy, it's not my life your wasting, only your kids :cool:

Africa is a continent?

Yea. I graduated. Have you realized that the big bang happened over 13.5 billion years ago? And that this picture (http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/8004/spacebc.jpg) disproves your life?

Keep on blindly following guy, it's not my life your wasting, only your kids :cool:
You've done the necessary research on evolution in order to make an informed decision? Doubtful. I have.

Ah, keep believing what the substandard government school taught you. It helps you to keep your 'lemming' status.

In other words, africa is a country right? :rolleyes:

In other words, africa is a country right? :rolleyes:
I'm pretty sure neither one of us knows what you're talking about at the moment. :rolleyes:

do you want text or video about Islam?

text will do fine.