[Rich]

Because, if you notice, modern secular values are very close, if not identical, with the morals taught in the Gospels.

Including the bits about homosexuality being an abomination in the eyes of the Lord?

What bits in the Gospels?

And also the bits about women having to be silent and cover their heads in church?

Again what bit in the Gospels? Now don't get me wrong, the Gospels are severely lacking in female nudity. That's one of the reasons I prefer game of thrones to the Gospels, despite Bernard Cornwall's carping. (I'm not quite sure why he was carping because "the Last Kingdom makes GoT seem rather tame). There actually is a surprising amount of gratuitous male nudity in the Gospels, none of which seems to occasion disapproval. That the Gospels are actually hinting approval of homosexuality is not that unreasonable an interpretation.

Not to mention the fact that unbelievers are doomed to eternal perdition. In other words, your statement is nonsense.

A fiery end may be suggested by the Gospels, but not for homosexuality or "immodesty".

[Potemkin]

Including the bits about homosexuality being an abomination in the eyes of the Lord?


What bits in the Gospels?

Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

The Biblical text is very clear on this point.

And also the bits about women having to be silent and cover their heads in church?


Again what bit in the Gospels?

Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.

But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.

Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.

Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?

It seems that I, an atheistic Communist, know the Scriptures better than you do, Rich.

[mikema63]

It's a weird thing but they've actually tested christians and atheists for bible knowledge and atheists tend to have better knowledge of the "good" book than Christians.

[Pants-of-dog]

I think Rich is referring to the four books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

[Potemkin]

It's a weird thing but they've actually tested christians and atheists for bible knowledge and atheists tend to have better knowledge of the "good" book than Christians.

Many 'Christians' merely seem to be social conservatives who use the Scriptures merely as a 'master signifier' to justify their own prejudices and bigotry, to the extent that many of them don't seem to have troubled themselves to read the Biblical text itself even once. This is why they can believe stuff which actually contradicts Biblical teaching, such as that being wealthy is a sign of God's favour, or that homosexuality is not denounced in the New Testament, or that the Gospels teach that women are equal to men, and other nonsense of that sort.

I think Rich is referring to the four books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

Unless Rich wants to claim that St Paul was a heretic or was just plain wrong about stuff, then he must accept that the letters of St Paul are regarded by mainstream Christianity as being Holy Writ, just as much as the four gospels.

[KlassWar]

Unless Rich wants to claim that St Paul was a heretic or was just plain wrong about stuff, then he must accept that the letters of St Paul are regarded by mainstream Christianity as being Holy Writ, just as much as the four gospels.

In all fairness to Rich, Saint Paul quite probably was some sort of reactionary heresiarch in the Early Christian Church, which was apparently highly egalitarian and collectivistic. Most of what Paul writes is an attempt to make the Church submit to both patriarchy and class society. It's unsurprising that such reactionaries would be canonized when Christianity became the official religion of the Roman oligarchy.

[Potemkin]

I'm inclined to agree with you on that issue, KlassWar - James the Just, the brother of Jesus and the leader of the Christian Church in Jerusalem, seems to have bitterly opposed St Paul. Unfortunately, he was killed in a riot a few years later and the Jerusalem Church was destroyed, so St Paul's ideas prevailed. Nevertheless, the fact remains that mainstream Christianity denounces homosexuality as a grave sin, and with good reason - the letters of St Paul denounce it, and those letters are Holy Writ, just as much as the Gospels.

[Frollein]

It's a weird thing but they've actually tested christians and atheists for bible knowledge and atheists tend to have better knowledge of the "good" book than Christians.

It's a case of "know your enemy".

[Rich]

It seems that I, an atheistic Communist, know the Scriptures better than you do, Rich.

I'm not a Christian by the way, one or two people on the forum seem to be under that impression. I don't even believe Jesus existed. I think Mohamed is more plausible than Jesus as a historical personage, but even with Mohamed his biographies are highly, highly dubious as are the Buddha's.

Yes i did highlight the word Gospels several times, which was the word in the original post to which you responded. This is not just pedantry on my part (not that as a Stannis Baratheon fan that would let you off the hook. ) Again speaking as someone that is not a Christian but observing people who are, its not that difficult for Liberal Christians to emphasise the Gospels and leave aside the Old Testament and Pauls writings. They also tend to ignore Revelations and Mathews jot and tittle comment. I mean seriously what are you meant to do with that? If you tried to follow Matthew 5:18 then you're back at Orthodox Judaism.

No if you try and put aides prejudices from the traditional Churches, the Old Testament, the Chruch fathers and the other new testament writings and look at the Gospels with fresh eyes its quite remarkable what you find. To me the Gospels suggest that the Fires of Hell are being warmed for the Capitalist roaders not the Gays or the "sluts".

It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a homosexual

The biographies of Mohammed can also be surprising but in a very different way to the Gospel Jesus(es).

[Potemkin]

Yes i did highlight the word Gospels several times, which was the word in the original post to which you responded. This is not just pedantry on my part (nothat as a Stannis Baratheon fan that would let you off the hook. )

Good point. Nevertheless, if what you are trying to imply is that Jesus did not explicitly condemn homosexuality in the Gospel accounts of his preaching, then this is certainly true. However, this skirts dangerously close to proposing that the 'real' Jesus was okay with homosexuality, which is a much more dubious idea. The teachings of the 'real' Jesus are simply unknowable, even assuming that there was ever a 'real' Jesus to begin with. And if you discard the letters of St Paul, then why not discard the gospels too and just snip out Jesus' sayings out of the text and collect them as being the only 'authentic' Christianity? Where do you stop?

No if you try and put aides prejudices from the traditional Churches, the Old Testament, the Chruch fathers and the other new testament writings and look at the Gospels with fresh eyes its quite remarkable what you find. To me the Gospels suggest that the Fires of Hell are being warmed for the Capitalist roaders not the Gays or the "sluts".

I'm inclined to agree with you. Jesus was, after all, a hippie dropout who hung out with tax-collectors, thieves and prostitutes. He seems to have been a thoroughly disreputable fellow.

[Harmattan]

Absolutely. They are a deplorable anachronism. But, other cultures don't rape, sexually harass, or murder people?

I know no western power that institutionalized rape and forced weddings with minors and uses mutilations and atrocities as promotional material. Do you?

Let me remind you the question: what would have happened if the various Muslim powers were the ones holding nuclear weapons instead of the West? Whether individuals can commit atrocities regardless of their religion is irrelevant in this respect.

The new colonial elites and core elites are all part of the transnational capitalist class and have a common interest in enriching themselves at the cost of the welfare of periphery countries, so it does not matter either way.

- Reducing the actions of tens of thousands of western political and economical leaders to an uniform entity is as absurd as claiming that all factory workers in the world share the same plans.
- Just like it is absurd to claim that their actions can be reduced to the sole interest of serving the short-term interests of western corporations.
- Just like it is absurd to claim that enrichment has to be done at the expense of others: look at how China managed to benefit from the western capital.

Islam is not just a religion; it is a political-legal doctrine more than anything else. I get that.

But I think you incorrectly measure the position Muhammad hold in this religion nor how he is used by the various fundamentalist movements. Of course most of Muslims mostly ignore their religion, like in all religions, but the others are inevitably faced with the centrality and omnipresence of Muhammad and his example in their religious life.

When I spoke of wealth and integration, I was referring to a specific demographic that adopted a more or less secular life-style

So did I, maybe I should have not mentioned Ben Laden. Those who fund the Muslim schools and Mosques today in France are French entrepreneurs, traders, lawyers, professors, etc.

Again Islam does not reproduce the Western secularization model. It has constantly gained influence for decades in all Muslim countries on all continents and it is reaching more and more stupid proportions every year despite overall economical progresses. It is first and foremost an identity question and it is also a politically reaction against the existing national and international orders. And unfortunately ostentatious demonstrations are much appreciated by Muslims and the higher social classes are always the ones most avid of social recognition.

In the West secularization occurred as a reaction against the monarchy and religious powers. In the Muslim world religious radicalization occurs as a reaction against the secular governments and the Western legacy.

Islam around the world has headed towards radicalization for the past decades and so far there has been no sign of inversion. I doubt that doing nothing could change this.

I would hate to live in such a world, but you are problematizing the fact that peripheral peoples disenchanted with their place in the global hierarchy want to change things with violent means and a retrograde ideology. It's shocking that Muslims would want this, right!?

But ISIS is only anecdotally targeting the West, it is not a threat for the West (at least on the short-term), it is not an economical project, it is first of all a religious crusade within the Muslim world and against Muslims to instigate a caliphate and exterminate infidels.

It certainly stems from political discontentment. So did almost all atrocities. But it will not fix anything and it is no less barbarian.

[ingliz]

Christianity denounces homosexuality as a grave sin

God does not.

The Day of Judgement (Little Apocalypse*):

"I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left. Two women shall be grinding** together; the one shall be taken, and the other left."

Luke 17:34-35 KJV

* The so-called Little Apocalypse, a sermon by Jesus found in Matthew with parallels in Mark and Luke, foretells the imminence of collective tribulation and chastisement before the coming of the “Son of Man” who will “sit upon the throne of his glory” and separate “the sheep from the goats.”

** In the Hebrew Bible, “grind” is used as an acceptable euphemism for sexual intercourse in at least four places: Job 31:10, Judges 16:21, Isaiah 47:2-3, and Lamentations 5:13. Plutarch records “grind” used as a sexual metaphor in the last quarter of the first century A.D., overlapping the probable years when Luke was composed.

homosexuality

Mark(?) & Jesus canoodle in the Garden of Gethsemane on the night of his arrest.

"And there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body; and the young men laid hold on him. And he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked."

Mark 14:51-52 KJV

[EU rope]

Luke 19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. (killing infidels much? )

Good, you got me right there. If you can name the people (slayed before Jesus that is), I'll admit defeat.

The music you like is also a product of your culture, that you don't like Islamic music says nothing of the value of Islamic music.

If only the music of the Islamic world didn't sound like crap.

Algebra, the guitar, coffee, a great deal of astronomical work, the astrolabe, surgery, the camera obscura, and on and on.

The zero was invented in India and was taken from Arabs. And who know what else they may have taken. Actually Arabs were pretty advanced before iSLAM came along in 7 c. A.D.. You read those Arabian nights and it tells about smart people, widespread drinking of al-cohol, modesty, fairness...

[Frollein]

A great deal of astronomical work was done by the Babylonians who were not Muslims at the time. Islam inherited the cultural accomplishments of the peoples it subjugated and then sat on it for centuries, doing essentially nothing. And then started whining about the West leaving them behind.

Tell me about recent scientific or technological advances in current Islamic countries.

[ingliz]

Tell me about recent scientific or technological advances in current Islamic countries.

Iran filed 16,006 international patents in the field of nanotechnology between 2003-13.

The number of published nanotechnology ISI-indexed articles is one of the scientific indices to evaluate the scientific standing of the countries. As is seen in Figure 3, Iran has shown significant growth in this index in the past 10 years, to the extent that it improved its rank to 8th in 2012.

[The Sabbaticus]

Sounds like patent trolling to me. For some reason I find it doubtful that they could have used those patents for commercial applications.

[mikema63]

Good, you got me right there. If you can name the people (slayed before Jesus that is), I'll admit defeat.

Oh I see, it doesn't actually matter what the leader of a religion says to do to people who don't believe in him, nor does all the killing in his name throughout the centuries count.

If only the music of the Islamic world didn't sound like crap.

What a ridiculous thing to say. I point out that musical taste is subjective, and you respond with your opinion as if it had some objective capacity to judge musical quality.

The zero was invented in India and was taken from Arabs.

I am aware.

And who know what else they may have taken.

Anything that doesn't fit into your preconceived notions.

Actually Arabs were pretty advanced before iSLAM came along in 7 c. A.D.. You read those Arabian nights and it tells about smart people, widespread drinking of al-cohol, modesty, fairness...

That says nothing about anything.

A great deal of astronomical work was done by the Babylonians who were not Muslims at the time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomy_in_the_medieval_Islamic_world

Islam inherited the cultural accomplishments of the peoples it subjugated and then sat on it for centuries, doing essentially nothing. And then started whining about the West leaving them behind.

Utter bullshit.

Tell me about recent scientific or technological advances in current Islamic countries.

Ingliz gave you an example in one field. Several muslim countries have vigorous scientific research programs.

Sounds like patent trolling to me. For some reason I find it doubtful that they could have used those patents for commercial applications.

Because you wish to continue believing arabs are stupid and islam is evil. Your excuse is designed to fit your narrative and keep you from having to reevaluate your thoughts on muslims even one iota towards "okay, maybe they can do basic science and don't live in caves."

[fuser]

Only Satanists could hate Sufi Music.

[EU rope]

Oh I see, it doesn't actually matter what the leader of a religion says to do to people who don't believe in him, nor does all the killing in his name throughout the centuries count.

You know, that's not a bad idea. May be instead of loving and standing Muslims, we should feel our hands untied and kill'em all, as Jesus suggests! At least we could point out the Scripture as our excuse, right?

Because you wish to continue believing arabs are stupid and islam is evil.

No, Arabs are pretty clever, but this cleverness serves evil goals (unlike Islam, Christianity never had te goal of "taking over the world". "Gospel" means "good news" and is only for those who want to listen, not all people). So, that would make Arabs cunning.
Why can't you admit that Islam is evil religion? Perhaps you fear of confessing that you have lost all you life worshipping the wrong deity?

[mikema63]

You know, that's not a bad idea. May be instead of loving and standing Muslims, we should feel our hands untied and kill'em all, as Jesus suggests! At least we could point out the Scripture as our excuse, right?

From a theological standpoint you would be justified, but then religion is really shitty like that.

No, Arabs are pretty clever, but this cleverness serves evil goals (unlike Islam, Christianity never had te goal of "taking over the world". "Gospel" means "good news" and is only for those who want to listen, not all people). So, that would make Arabs cunning.

So they are only intelligent when being evil, got it.

Why can't you admit that Islam is evil religion?

Because that's fucking stupid.

Perhaps you fear of confessing that you have lost all you life worshipping the wrong deity?

I'm an atheist.