"Government leaders and ordinary people around the world seem to be
giving up on the view, oft-argued since 9/11, that Islam is not to
blame for the violent acts of its militant miscrants. That change of
heart is spawning an epidemic of attacks on Muslims, their religion,
its icons, practices and customs."

More at
http://tinyurl.com/395yvmq

Remedy suggested in this article: "Muslims who oppose violence must
make a concerted effort to curtail the provacateurs."

The author, Joel Brinkley, is a professor of journalism at Stamford
University and was formerly a Pulitzer-Prize-winning foreign
correspondent for the New York Times.

On Sep 30, 3:17*pm, Don Foreman wrote:
"Government leaders and ordinary people around the world seem to be
giving up on the view, oft-argued since 9/11, that Islam is not to
blame for the violent acts of its militant miscrants. *That change of
heart is spawning an epidemic of attacks on Muslims, their religion,
its icons, practices and customs."

More athttp://tinyurl.com/395yvmq

Remedy suggested in this article: * "Muslims who oppose violence must
make a concerted effort to curtail the provacateurs."

The author, Joel Brinkley, is a professor of journalism at Stamford
University and was formerly a Pulitzer-Prize-winning foreign
correspondent for the New York Times.

Every nasty, evil, horrible thing done by muslim terrorists is not
only in the koran, but it is actually required behavior.

This puts those who wish to follow islam *as though* it were a
moderate and tolerant religion in a bit of a bind.

Maybe islam can be saved from itself (its strict adherents)- but
probably not.


Dave

On 9/30/2010 2:17 PM, Don Foreman wrote:
"Government leaders and ordinary people around the world seem to be
giving up on the view, oft-argued since 9/11, that Islam is not to
blame for the violent acts of its militant miscrants. That change of
heart is spawning an epidemic of attacks on Muslims, their religion,
its icons, practices and customs."

More at
http://tinyurl.com/395yvmq

Remedy suggested in this article: "Muslims who oppose violence must
make a concerted effort to curtail the provacateurs."

It's about damned time

--
I can see November from my front porch

"Dave__67" wrote in message
...
On Sep 30, 3:17 pm, Don Foreman wrote:
"Government leaders and ordinary people around the world seem to be
giving up on the view, oft-argued since 9/11, that Islam is not to
blame for the violent acts of its militant miscrants. That change of
heart is spawning an epidemic of attacks on Muslims, their religion,
its icons, practices and customs."

More athttp://tinyurl.com/395yvmq

Remedy suggested in this article: "Muslims who oppose violence must
make a concerted effort to curtail the provacateurs."

The author, Joel Brinkley, is a professor of journalism at Stamford
University and was formerly a Pulitzer-Prize-winning foreign
correspondent for the New York Times.

Every nasty, evil, horrible thing done by muslim terrorists is not
only in the koran, but it is actually required behavior.

This puts those who wish to follow islam *as though* it were a
moderate and tolerant religion in a bit of a bind.

Maybe islam can be saved from itself (its strict adherents)- but
probably not.


Dave

does it bother you to lie outright? Have you personally verified your
statement? Have you read the christian bible, particularly the old
testament to see the level of violence it advocates?

Bill Noble wrote:

Every nasty, evil, horrible thing done by muslim terrorists is not
only in the koran, but it is actually required behavior.

This puts those who wish to follow islam *as though* it were a
moderate and tolerant religion in a bit of a bind.

Maybe islam can be saved from itself (its strict adherents)- but
probably not.


Dave

does it bother you to lie outright? Have you personally verified your
statement? Have you read the christian bible, particularly the old
testament to see the level of violence it advocates?


We are in the NEW Testament age now, Bill.


--

Richard Lamb

CaveLamb wrote:

Bill Noble wrote:

Every nasty, evil, horrible thing done by muslim terrorists is not
only in the koran, but it is actually required behavior.

This puts those who wish to follow islam *as though* it were a
moderate and tolerant religion in a bit of a bind.

Maybe islam can be saved from itself (its strict adherents)- but
probably not.


Dave

does it bother you to lie outright? Have you personally verified your
statement? Have you read the christian bible, particularly the old
testament to see the level of violence it advocates?

We are in the NEW Testament age now, Bill.


Bill is stuck in the Koran.


--
Politicians should only get paid if the budget is balanced, and there is
enough left over to pay them.

On Sep 30, 10:06*pm, "Bill Noble" wrote:
"Dave__67" wrote in message

...



On Sep 30, 3:17 pm, Don Foreman wrote:
"Government leaders and ordinary people around the world seem to be
giving up on the view, oft-argued since 9/11, that Islam is not to
blame for the violent acts of its militant miscrants. *That change of
heart is spawning an epidemic of attacks on Muslims, their religion,
its icons, practices and customs."

More athttp://tinyurl.com/395yvmq

Remedy suggested in this article: * "Muslims who oppose violence must
make a concerted effort to curtail the provacateurs."

The author, Joel Brinkley, is a professor of journalism at Stamford
University and was formerly a Pulitzer-Prize-winning foreign
correspondent for the New York Times.

Every nasty, evil, horrible thing done by muslim terrorists is not
only in the koran, but it is actually required behavior.

This puts those who wish to follow islam *as though* it were a
moderate and tolerant religion in a bit of a bind.

Maybe islam can be saved from itself (its strict adherents)- but
probably not.

Dave

does it bother you to lie outright? *Have you personally verified your
statement? *Have you read the christian bible, particularly the old
testament to see the level of violence it advocates?

Get a clue.

Find me where new or old testament says "Strike at the necks of the
unbeliever".

Lying, suppression, political murder, pedophilia- it's all there in
the koran if you don't have your eyes shut.


Dave

"Dave__67" wrote
Get a clue.

Find me where new or old testament says "Strike at the necks of the
unbeliever".

I guess you'd discount Cain slaying Abel - that was jealousy, not unbelief
(but it was pretty early in the good book...)

Sodom and Gomorrah? That wasn't *just* that dirty thing they did - it was
unbelief, too. (Not specific enough?)

How about the flood? Everyone on earth except for a handful of the
faithful? Not enough striking at the necks?

OK then - let's settle for the old standby - the Midianites:

Numbers 25
16 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
17 Vex the Midianites, and smite them:

Remember them? The Midianites? Unbelievers?
Smote at His command.

Enough clues?
(There are *hundreds* of others)

--
Jeff R

Some of us are in the age of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ.
Which brings us to the Book of Mormon.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"CaveLamb" wrote in message
m...


does it bother you to lie outright? Have you personally verified
your
statement? Have you read the christian bible, particularly the old
testament to see the level of violence it advocates?


We are in the NEW Testament age now, Bill.


--

Richard Lamb

Stamp out intolerance! We'll have no more of that.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Bill Noble"
wrote in message ...



We are in the NEW Testament age now, Bill.


--

Richard Lamb


My point here is not to defend Islam, or to attach Christianity -
rather my
point is to attack mindless hatred as expressed in the posting to
which I
originally responded.

On 10/1/2010 6:27 AM, Dave__67 wrote:
On Sep 30, 10:06 pm, "Bill wrote:
wrote in message

...



On Sep 30, 3:17 pm, Don wrote:
"Government leaders and ordinary people around the world seem to be
giving up on the view, oft-argued since 9/11, that Islam is not to
blame for the violent acts of its militant miscrants. That change of
heart is spawning an epidemic of attacks on Muslims, their religion,
its icons, practices and customs."

More athttp://tinyurl.com/395yvmq

Remedy suggested in this article: "Muslims who oppose violence must
make a concerted effort to curtail the provacateurs."

The author, Joel Brinkley, is a professor of journalism at Stamford
University and was formerly a Pulitzer-Prize-winning foreign
correspondent for the New York Times.

Every nasty, evil, horrible thing done by muslim terrorists is not
only in the koran, but it is actually required behavior.

This puts those who wish to follow islam *as though* it were a
moderate and tolerant religion in a bit of a bind.

Maybe islam can be saved from itself (its strict adherents)- but
probably not.

Dave

does it bother you to lie outright? Have you personally verified your
statement? Have you read the christian bible, particularly the old
testament to see the level of violence it advocates?

Get a clue.

Find me where new or old testament says "Strike at the necks of the
unbeliever".

Lying, suppression, political murder, pedophilia- it's all there in
the koran if you don't have your eyes shut.

The point is, the Old Testament is a history book. And yes, God did
instruct His believers to kill non-believers in wholesale fashion, but
not just because they were non-believers, but because they threatened
the very existence of His followers. He even told the Israelites to
wipe out every man, woman, and child of the tribe that supposedly came
to be the Palestinians. The Israelites declined, and they are still
paying for it.
The New Testament is mostly about how to live as a Christian.
In the Bible, the actual instructions to believers are the Ten
Commandments. I don't recall any of them that command Christians to
murder non-Christians. The primary instruction is to make believers of
non-believers, for their own good.
The Koran has very different instructions for muslims.

--
I can see November from my front porch

"RBnDFW" wrote in message
...

The New Testament is mostly about how to live as a Christian.
In the Bible, the actual instructions to believers are the Ten
Commandments. I don't recall any of them that command Christians to murder
non-Christians.

What is one to do with the individual who doesn't -say- observe the sabbath?

Numbers and Exodus and Leviticus are quite certain about this. Death.

"Jeff R." wrote in message
...

"RBnDFW" wrote in message
...

The New Testament is mostly about how to live as a Christian.
In the Bible, the actual instructions to believers are the Ten
Commandments. I don't recall any of them that command Christians to
murder non-Christians.

What is one to do with the individual who doesn't -say- observe the
sabbath?

Numbers and Exodus and Leviticus are quite certain about this. Death.



Then don't let us catch you not keeping the Sabbath holy...or we will kill
you!

"Buerste" wrote in message
...

"Jeff R." wrote in message
...

"RBnDFW" wrote in message
...

The New Testament is mostly about how to live as a Christian.
In the Bible, the actual instructions to believers are the Ten
Commandments. I don't recall any of them that command Christians to
murder non-Christians.

What is one to do with the individual who doesn't -say- observe the
sabbath?

Numbers and Exodus and Leviticus are quite certain about this. Death.



Then don't let us catch you not keeping the Sabbath holy...or we will kill
you!

Yes indeed.
Shame about all those hospital workers, ambulance drivers, shopkeepers,
soldiers, utility workers, "entertainment" workers, police, firemen, etc.
etc.
I guess we'll just have to kill them all. After all, that's what is
demanded in the Ten Commandments.

Praise the Lord and pass the stone(s).

"Jeff R." wrote:

"Buerste" wrote in message
...

"Jeff R." wrote in message
...

"RBnDFW" wrote in message
...

The New Testament is mostly about how to live as a Christian.
In the Bible, the actual instructions to believers are the Ten
Commandments. I don't recall any of them that command Christians to
murder non-Christians.

What is one to do with the individual who doesn't -say- observe the
sabbath?

Numbers and Exodus and Leviticus are quite certain about this. Death.



Then don't let us catch you not keeping the Sabbath holy...or we will kill
you!

Yes indeed.
Shame about all those hospital workers, ambulance drivers, shopkeepers,
soldiers, utility workers, "entertainment" workers, police, firemen, etc.
etc.
I guess we'll just have to kill them all. After all, that's what is
demanded in the Ten Commandments.

Praise the Lord and pass the stone(s).


Appparently, you're the lost sheep that fell into a pit.

Matthew 12:11:

And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall
have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he
not lay hold on it, and lift it out?


--
Politicians should only get paid if the budget is balanced, and there is
enough left over to pay them.

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...

"Jeff R." wrote:
I guess we'll just have to kill them all. After all, that's what is
demanded in the Ten Commandments.

Praise the Lord and pass the stone(s).


Appparently, you're the lost sheep that fell into a pit.

Matthew 12:11:

And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall
have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he
not lay hold on it, and lift it out?

Touché!

Aye - it's just as well there is a loophole for all of the absolute
pronouncements of the good book.

"Jeff R." wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...

"Jeff R." wrote:
I guess we'll just have to kill them all. After all, that's what is
demanded in the Ten Commandments.

Praise the Lord and pass the stone(s).


Appparently, you're the lost sheep that fell into a pit.

Matthew 12:11:

And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall
have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he
not lay hold on it, and lift it out?

Touché!

Aye - it's just as well there is a loophole for all of the absolute
pronouncements of the good book.


Loophole? No, it's stating that if something is an emergency that
you take care of it. Its the day to day, mundane things that are not
allowed.


--
Politicians should only get paid if the budget is balanced, and there is
enough left over to pay them.

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
...

"Jeff R." wrote:
Touché!

Aye - it's just as well there is a loophole for all of the absolute
pronouncements of the good book.


Loophole? No, it's stating that if something is an emergency that
you take care of it. Its the day to day, mundane things that are not
allowed.


It's an exception to an expression of "absolute" morality - hence - a
*loophole*.

A real, absolute law would have no loophole - especially one developed or
pronounced centuries later.

"Oh, it was a stoning offence in the day of Moses, but Jesus has this neat
way out..."

"Jeff R." wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
...

"Jeff R." wrote:
Touché!

Aye - it's just as well there is a loophole for all of the absolute
pronouncements of the good book.


Loophole? No, it's stating that if something is an emergency that
you take care of it. Its the day to day, mundane things that are not
allowed.


It's an exception to an expression of "absolute" morality - hence - a
*loophole*.

A real, absolute law would have no loophole - especially one developed or
pronounced centuries later.

"Oh, it was a stoning offence in the day of Moses, but Jesus has this neat
way out..."


It's common sense, but 'you're' looking for loopholes.


--
Politicians should only get paid if the budget is balanced, and there is
enough left over to pay them.

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
...

"Jeff R." wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
...

"Jeff R." wrote:
Touché!

Aye - it's just as well there is a loophole for all of the absolute
pronouncements of the good book.


Loophole? No, it's stating that if something is an emergency that
you take care of it. Its the day to day, mundane things that are not
allowed.


It's an exception to an expression of "absolute" morality - hence - a
*loophole*.

A real, absolute law would have no loophole - especially one developed or
pronounced centuries later.

"Oh, it was a stoning offence in the day of Moses, but Jesus has this
neat
way out..."


It's common sense, but 'you're' looking for loopholes.



Of course it's common sense - but it had to be edited into the new
testament, since such a blindingly obviously sensible exception (loophole)
didn't appear in the original version of the rule (the OT).

In article ,
says...

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
...

"Jeff R." wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
...

"Jeff R." wrote:
Touché!

Aye - it's just as well there is a loophole for all of the absolute
pronouncements of the good book.


Loophole? No, it's stating that if something is an emergency that
you take care of it. Its the day to day, mundane things that are not
allowed.


It's an exception to an expression of "absolute" morality - hence - a
*loophole*.

A real, absolute law would have no loophole - especially one developed or
pronounced centuries later.

"Oh, it was a stoning offence in the day of Moses, but Jesus has this
neat
way out..."


It's common sense, but 'you're' looking for loopholes.



Of course it's common sense - but it had to be edited into the new
testament, since such a blindingly obviously sensible exception (loophole)
didn't appear in the original version of the rule (the OT).

It shouldn't have had to be stated at all, however the terminally anal-
retentive seem to be attracted to the clergy and other positions of
authority.

"Jeff R." wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
...

"Jeff R." wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
...

"Jeff R." wrote:
Touché!

Aye - it's just as well there is a loophole for all of the absolute
pronouncements of the good book.

Loophole? No, it's stating that if something is an emergency that
you take care of it. Its the day to day, mundane things that are not
allowed.

It's an exception to an expression of "absolute" morality - hence - a
*loophole*.

A real, absolute law would have no loophole - especially one developed or
pronounced centuries later.

"Oh, it was a stoning offence in the day of Moses, but Jesus has this
neat way out..."

It's common sense, but 'you're' looking for loopholes.

Of course it's common sense - but it had to be edited into the new
testament, since such a blindingly obviously sensible exception (loophole)
didn't appear in the original version of the rule (the OT).


And you know this, how?


--
Politicians should only get paid if the budget is balanced, and there is
enough left over to pay them.

On Fri, 1 Oct 2010 22:23:12 -0400, "Buerste" wrote:


"Jeff R." wrote in message
u...

"RBnDFW" wrote in message
...

The New Testament is mostly about how to live as a Christian.
In the Bible, the actual instructions to believers are the Ten
Commandments. I don't recall any of them that command Christians to
murder non-Christians.

What is one to do with the individual who doesn't -say- observe the
sabbath?

Numbers and Exodus and Leviticus are quite certain about this. Death.



Then don't let us catch you not keeping the Sabbath holy...or we will kill
you!



I don't see the problem, you've got one lot that thinks Friday is important,
one lot that thinks Saturday is important and a last lot that thinks Sunday is
important. Sound's like a perfect arrangement for job sharing or shift work to
me...


Mark Rand
RTFM

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...

"Jeff R." wrote:

Of course it's common sense - but it had to be edited into the new
testament, since such a blindingly obviously sensible exception
(loophole)
didn't appear in the original version of the rule (the OT).


And you know this, how?


Oh, that's easy.

I consulted the workshop manual.

The first one laid out the laws, and the the second version delineates the
loopholes.

(Don't get me started on slavery, BTW)

"Jeff R." wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...

"Jeff R." wrote:

Of course it's common sense - but it had to be edited into the new
testament, since such a blindingly obviously sensible exception
(loophole)
didn't appear in the original version of the rule (the OT).


And you know this, how?


Oh, that's easy.

I consulted the workshop manual.

The first one laid out the laws, and the the second version delineates the
loopholes.


Are you really that ignorant?


(Don't get me started on slavery, BTW)


Looks like you already have.


--
Politicians should only get paid if the budget is balanced, and there is
enough left over to pay them.

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
...

"Jeff R." wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...

"Jeff R." wrote:

Of course it's common sense - but it had to be edited into the new
testament, since such a blindingly obviously sensible exception
(loophole)
didn't appear in the original version of the rule (the OT).


And you know this, how?


Oh, that's easy.

I consulted the workshop manual.

The first one laid out the laws, and the the second version delineates
the
loopholes.


Are you really that ignorant?

Oh I see!
Reading the OT and the NT promotes ignorance.

Kind'a like this, huh?
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/ba...piditburns.jpg


/frivolity

OK then.
Relieve my obvious ignorance.
Tell me how the commandments made in the OT are *not* modified or
watered-down or downright ignored by the revelations of the NT.

It's a reasonable request.

"Jeff R." wrote:

Oh I see!
Reading the OT and the NT promotes ignorance.


No, but you don't seem to be able to tell the difference, or why
there are differences. That makes it a complete waste of anyone's time
to try and explain anything to you.


--
Politicians should only get paid if the budget is balanced, and there is
enough left over to pay them.

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
...

"Jeff R." wrote:

Oh I see!
Reading the OT and the NT promotes ignorance.


No, but you don't seem to be able to tell the difference, or why
there are differences. That makes it a complete waste of anyone's time
to try and explain anything to you.

...but its good to see that you made a valiant attempt anyway.

Ummmm... "...don't seem to be able to tell the difference..."?
Isn't that the whole point of every post I've made on this topic?

You can read, can't you?

"Jeff R." wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
...

"Jeff R." wrote:

Oh I see!
Reading the OT and the NT promotes ignorance.


No, but you don't seem to be able to tell the difference, or why
there are differences. That makes it a complete waste of anyone's time
to try and explain anything to you.

..but its good to see that you made a valiant attempt anyway.

Ummmm... "...don't seem to be able to tell the difference..."?
Isn't that the whole point of every post I've made on this topic?

You can read, can't you?


You can troll, can't you?


--
Politicians should only get paid if the budget is balanced, and there is
enough left over to pay them.

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...

"Jeff R." wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
...

"Jeff R." wrote:

Oh I see!
Reading the OT and the NT promotes ignorance.


No, but you don't seem to be able to tell the difference, or why
there are differences. That makes it a complete waste of anyone's time
to try and explain anything to you.

..but its good to see that you made a valiant attempt anyway.

Ummmm... "...don't seem to be able to tell the difference..."?
Isn't that the whole point of every post I've made on this topic?

You can read, can't you?


You can troll, can't you?

Now, now, Michael...
Don't fall for that. A good troll posts *one* (and only one) inflammatory
post, then sits back to enjoy the fireworks.
I'm trying to engage you in debate (unsuccessfully), not trolling.

I'll try again. (Can you reply without insulting me?)
The OT outlines many, many rules and prohibitions. The decalogue is only a
very small cross-section of these. (And even those ten rules aren't
interpreted identically across the denominations.)
The NT (partly by way of the "New Covenant") seeks to modify, or water down,
or even eliminate some (many?) of these OT rules. One might say that the NT
introduces "loopholes" to the unambiguous laws of Genesis and Leviticus and
Exodus. (*I* certainly do.)

Now, without just accusing me of "ignorance" or "trolling", would you care
to address my assertions in the above paragraphs? Show me explicitly where
I'm wrong?

No skin off my nose if you don't.

--
Jeff R.