Is Islam compatible within Western Society?

[Rusha]

Actually oh gormless one, I've outright condemned any extremist practice - repeatedly no less, and in response to you when you pull this stupid shtick. So either you are outright dumb or completely and deliberately dishonest.

Ok, with you it could actually be a combination but you're the nut who would support the very same as these nutjobs do and advocate it as "punishment" in the West. So congrats there Nick. You have more in common with Muslim extremists than I would ever want to come close to.

Wear that badge with pride doofus.

:thumb: And once again, religious extremists are bad ... and very, very VERY mean ... and have no manners! Consider them condemned!

 

[Arthur Brain]

Not sure the fine tuning on the point matters. Aside from the point of separation it's mostly speculation.

It's mostly speculation all ends up. If you don't think 'fine tuning' matters where it comes to what you interpret as an 'eternal' matter then hey...

Sure. The point is that in both cases we're really describing the consequence of a willful act.

Not at all. Gravity is proven to exist. Your belief in a 'hell' isn't remotely so and unlike gravity there aren't a myriad viewpoints on the issue.

Not to me and not in the way I used it. And given I'm not trying to talk the Pope out of his hat, that's the ballgame.

Supra.

I don't know what sort of Christian wouldn't, but you're probably right. The proof is in scripture if you credit it. If not, it isn't.

Okay, so how about you explain just what exactly 'hell' actually is then. Then perhaps you can clarify what sheol, hades, tartarus & gehenna are by the same token. Then perhaps you can give an in depth explanation on just what the lake of fire is and how hades/hell along with 'death' can be thrown into the thing. You say the proof is in scripture? You show just why your belief in regards to 'hell' should be taken seriously then.

We differ. I suppose you could put it that way for either of us, but I don't see why either of us would.

You've just stated that you don't know what sort of Christian wouldn't believe presumably akin to you. Tell that to Origen...

I think that summation of hell absolutely is...and it's been approached like that, sometimes to real success. But it's not really my approach to grace.

There is no grace in a 'chick tract' or anything resembling unless the insidious has a place in that

I didn't say hell was part of that deliberation. But I understand how thinking about moral actions and ramifications can bring the question of consequence into play.

If you're truly contrite about something then the coercive threat of hideous punishment plays no part, in fact it diminishes any remorse.

Sure. That's not my point, but sure.

Well of course not, it was mine as counter.

I think Germany is an argument that you're an optimist on the point and I'd say that the little evils added up until a nation could largely accept and espouse a greater one. I don't think we go through life in stasis, so how and in what sense we grow and change is important and I think context largely determines it.

I think that's just a daft argument. Heck, why not bring up North Korea and Stalinist Russia if that's your angle? Many of the German population were under the tyranny of the Nazi regime and wanted nothing to do with it so what on earth is your point?

Most, the overwhelming majority of Christendom advances the idea of hell as a consequence for unrepentant sinners, but I believe that the emphasis in most churches is on how we respond to God and then one another, which is in line with the greater concentration of Christ's teaching.

Which idea of 'hell' TH? As before, how about you spell it out and in detail, else what are you advancing exactly? You yourself have a particular 'version' of it based on a psalm as I recall so the 'majority' thing isn't exactly much of an argument.

That anyone who subscribes to scripture on the point of hell is in need of "getting" it.

You need to clarify just what that understanding of scripture actually amounts to though. Some folk here think people literally burn through eternity and you don't. So why is that?

Justice isn't love. Mercy is. And not everything that it is profitable to understand will make you happy for understanding it. Evil, for instance.

Doctrines that promote unending interminable suffering for people strike me as evil. Go figure.

Couldn't disagree with you more and for the reasons given prior.

Supra.

Fear for whom? And there's mine.

Others. fear still plays its part.

Sure. Scripture isn't veiled about the existence of hell or the consequence of sin. I don't agree with you that there's "no consistency" in orthodoxy. I'm equally sure there's a good bit of room for honest disagreement on particulars.

Well as before then, you give a detailed description of just what "hell" is then, because if you think it's clear then you sure haven't been to that many church services that touch on the 'topic'. Nor have you seen the myriad takes on it just on here either. Everyone dies TH & if 'hell' is 'the grave'...etc.

It depends. By way of, if you question whether or not we should commit murder, whether the wages of sin is death, whether or not Christ is God or rose on the third day I'd say you're not really questioning doctrine, but a fundamental commitment to a particular faith. I question my understanding constantly.

Then try doing that with 'hell' then. From the literal eternal burning variety to your own take it's so insidiously depressing and bereft of both love and hope, so maybe take that on board and to "hell" with the 'mainstream'? Origen was probably that once over...

Just a thought.

:e4e:

 

[Arthur Brain]

No, I called you a whoremonger to liberalism. Get right you stupid evil idiot. Again, you have nothing to say about these animals. Nothing. Not a word.

She just did you bloody imbecile and she has done before as have I.

Have you got anything other than a monkey nut rattling around upstairs?

:kookoo:

 

[Town Heretic]

Not at all.

Entirely. If you step off of a mountain you fall. If you sin you invite as sure a judgment.

Gravity is proven to exist. Your belief in a 'hell' isn't remotely so and unlike gravity there aren't a myriad viewpoints on the issue.

It is to me. God is no more "proven to exist". I don't believe it's even possible to empirically approach. We aren't speaking of an empirical matter and I'm not offerering the parallel to offer an empirical proof.

Okay, so how about you explain just what exactly 'hell' actually is then.

I've told you all I know about it and speculated on the implication in prior conversations. It's as easy for anyone to google hell in the Bible or Christ on hell. I don't know what good could come of repeating it. You have a different article of faith. That's the Pope's hat I keep noting.

You show just why your belief in regards to 'hell' should be taken seriously then.

I'm not asking you to take seriously what you don't believe in. I'm telling you what I believe in...though my purpose in addressing shag wasn't a discourse on hell, but to sharpen the broad and I felt injurious brush he seemed too easy with in painting Christendom.

You've just stated that you don't know what sort of Christian wouldn't believe presumably akin to you. Tell that to Origen...

I'd rather listen to Origen's master on the subject. Jesus wasn't ambiguous in Mark 9 or Matthew 25.

If you're truly contrite about something then the coercive threat of hideous punishment plays no part, in fact it diminishes any remorse.

If you're contrite nothing diminishes it, but I'm not going to say that those sinners in the hands of an angry God were without value. I'm not even going to suggest that fearing the consequence of our actions is a means to shun as alter calls go, though I'd say for reason's sake that something was already moving in those moved by that message. I'll speak to that point again in a bit.

Some men put down their nets and follow with a gesture. Others are struck blind on the road. I leave the methodology that moves to God...for my part, I think the most effective approach to God and grace is found in the loving sacrifice of the cross and how it speaks to our nature and our hope.

I think that's just a daft argument. Heck, why not bring up North Korea and Stalinist Russia if that's your angle? Many of the German population were under the tyranny of the Nazi regime and wanted nothing to do with it so what on earth is your point?

Germany had been a strongly religious and overwhelmingly Christian society. That society embraced and empowered Hitler and then looked the other way as the Jews were put into ghettos and then, with the Gypsies and others, sent to the death camps. I don't have an angle and I noted my point in the post.

Which idea of 'hell' TH? As before, how about you spell it out and in detail, else what are you advancing exactly? You yourself have a particular 'version' of it based on a psalm as I recall so the 'majority' thing isn't exactly much of an argument.

It's a profound argument for the orthodox understanding within Christendom that hell exists as surely as judgment exists, and that it is because of this moral law, as certain as gravity (or more so) that the cross came into being and through it the offering of grace. My particular thoughts beyond that are of no real consequence and I won't submit them again without a fairly strong purpose.

Doctrines that promote unending interminable suffering for people strike me as evil. Go figure.

And you're the arbiter of what's acceptable and Holy? You, AB, are the judge of evil? Hell isn't a "doctrine". It's a reality spoken to by our Lord. What you accept or do with that is entirely up to you.

Well as before then, you give a detailed description of just what "hell" is then, because if you think it's clear then you sure haven't been to that many church services that touch on the 'topic'.

That's a silly thing to say.

Everyone dies TH & if 'hell' is 'the grave'...etc.

I've never heard of a grave that held what Matthew and Mark describe.

Others. fear still plays its part.

What others? Again, to believe in hell is to believe in the context that makes hell real to you. I don't think a blessed soul can be called to a thing they don't believe in by suggesting that that very thing will judge them. A person who feels that conviction is already moved on some level or the proposition is irrational.

Then try doing that with 'hell' then.

Then I wouldn't be questioning my judgment, in my estimation, but God's.

From the literal eternal burning variety to your own take it's so insidiously depressing and bereft of both love and hope

Hell isn't meant as a place of hope or for love. Those you find on the cross.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Entirely. If you step off of a mountain you fall. If you sin you invite as sure a judgment.


It is to me. God is no more "proven to exist". I don't believe it's even possible to empirically approach. We aren't speaking of an empirical matter and I'm not offerering the parallel to offer an empirical proof.


I've told you all I know about it and speculated on the implication in prior conversations. It's as easy for anyone to google hell in the Bible or Christ on hell. I don't know what good could come of repeating it. You have a different article of faith. That's the Pope's hat I keep noting.


I'm not asking you to take seriously what you don't believe in. I'm telling you what I believe in...though my purpose in addressing shag wasn't a discourse on hell, but to sharpen the broad and I felt injurious brush he seemed too easy with in painting Christendom.


I'd rather listen to Origen's master on the subject. Jesus wasn't ambiguous in Mark 9 or Matthew 25.


If you're contrite nothing diminishes it, but I'm not going to say that those sinners in the hands of an angry God were without value. I'm not even going to suggest that fearing the consequence of our actions is a means to shun as alter calls go, though I'd say for reason's sake that something was already moving in those moved by that message. I'll speak to that point again in a bit.

Some men put down their nets and follow with a gesture. Others are struck blind on the road. I leave the methodology that moves to God...for my part, I think the most effective approach to God and grace is found in the loving sacrifice of the cross and how it speaks to our nature and our hope.


Germany had been a strongly religious and overwhelmingly Christian society. That society embraced and empowered Hitler and then looked the other way as the Jews were put into ghettos and then, with the Gypsies and others, sent to the death camps. I don't have an angle and I noted my point in the post.


It's a profound argument for the orthodox understanding within Christendom that hell exists as surely as judgment exists, and that it is because of this moral law, as certain as gravity (or more so) that the cross came into being and through it the offering of grace. My particular thoughts beyond that are of no real consequence and I won't submit them again without a fairly strong purpose.


And you're the arbiter of what's acceptable and Holy? You, AB, are the judge of evil? Hell isn't a "doctrine". It's a reality spoken to by our Lord. What you accept or do with that is entirely up to you.


That's a silly thing to say.


I've never heard of a grave that held what Matthew and Mark describe.


What others? Again, to believe in hell is to believe in the context that makes hell real to you. I don't think a blessed soul can be called to a thing they don't believe in by suggesting that that very thing will judge them. A person who feels that conviction is already moved on some level or the proposition is irrational.


Then I wouldn't be questioning my judgment, in my estimation, but God's.


Hell isn't meant as a place of hope or for love. Those you find on the cross.

So you quote a couple of bible verses and yet you offer no understanding on just what 'hell' actually is, or any understanding of those who actually translated the original texts and in denotion to duration and everything else. You have no comment on 'hades', 'sheol', gehenna', 'tartarus' but just some bog standard "traditional" definition and the heck with anything that doesn't conform to that? Who are you to say that Origen and the early church in large part were wrong in their beliefs if you don't even comment on how such were erroneous? What real understanding do you actually have on this topic TH?

 

[intojoy]

Don't worry, the lefties will come crying and hide behind the real men when the jihadi Devils come for them. And I'll be happy to kick jihadist *** for them. Bananabetty


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Nick M]

And on cue, Arthur, the ruskie, and anna go after the one stating that muslims are barbarians. Speaking of which, barbie would do the same.

 

[PureX]

 

[Town Heretic]

So you quote a couple of bible verses

I noted what Christ had to say on the subject at two points.

and yet you offer no understanding on just what 'hell' actually is

I've stated clearly and categorically what it is, the product of judgment and a separation from God. That's the foundational teaching of the oldest Christian denomination in existence. Catholicism teaches, "The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God." (Catech 1030)"

That fundamental, foundational principle is shared by most of Christendom, is orthodoxy.

, or any understanding of those who actually translated the original texts and in denotion to duration and everything else.

I understand you want to reargue the point, but I didn't enter the thread to and simply don't see any constructive point to it.

Who are you to say that Origen and the early church in large part were wrong in their beliefs if you don't even comment on how such were erroneous?

Who am I to let Origen argue with Augustine and let both of them listen to Christ? Else, supra.

What real understanding do you actually have on this topic TH?

My own. The same as anyone else. The same as you, AB.

:e4e:

 

[Rusha]

By the way, the nanny will not be charged. The reason rusha, Arthur brain, anna, and others do not oppose it, is because islam opposes the Lord Jesus Christ.

Cool story ... making false allegations about others. Feel better?

Isn't funny how AB x2 and their jinxed Russian friend never criticize how muslims treat homos?

Already addressed.

:yawn: Not enough time ... I am too busy

them sweaters.

And on cue, Arthur, the ruskie, and anna go after the one stating that muslims are barbarians. Speaking of which, barbie would do the same.

:thumb: And once again, religious extremists are bad ... and very, very VERY mean ... and have no manners! Consider them condemned!

What
part
of
"religious extremists are bad ... and very, very VERY mean ... and have no manners! Consider them condemned!"
did
you
not
understand?

 

[ok doser]

You called me a filthy gutter whore rat ....

keep on whining about it, won't you?

And on cue, Arthur, the ruskie, and anna go after the one stating that muslims are barbarians. Speaking of which, barbie would do the same.

well, they are all retards

 

[annabenedetti]

Hey Nick, you never got around to addressing this:

I have no problem criticizing them. It's barbaric. All their ideology-based killing is barbaric, regardless of the reason (homosexuality, apostasy, adultery, fornication, etc.)

As for your photo, homosexuals should never be executed for being homosexual. Do you agree?

 

[annabenedetti]

And on cue, Arthur, the ruskie, and anna go after the one stating that muslims are barbarians. Speaking of which, barbie would do the same.

Nah, we're just calling you out on your lies.

 

[PureX]

What
part
of
"religious extremists are bad ... and very, very VERY mean ... and have no manners! Consider them condemned!"
did
you
not
understand?

The part where it applies to him.

 

[Rusha]

The part where it applies to him.

That does seem to be the case ...

 

[Arthur Brain]

Entirely. If you step off of a mountain you fall. If you sin you invite as sure a judgment.

The former is proven. The latter is a concept with varying different opinions as to what 'hell' is. Never mind the lake of fire...

It is to me. God is no more "proven to exist". I don't believe it's even possible to empirically approach. We aren't speaking of an empirical matter and I'm not offerering the parallel to offer an empirical proof.

A belief can be real to anyone but it doesn't follow as fact, nor can it often be shown to be sure.

I've told you all I know about it and speculated on the implication in prior conversations. It's as easy for anyone to google hell in the Bible or Christ on hell. I don't know what good could come of repeating it. You have a different article of faith. That's the Pope's hat I keep noting.

Sure it's easy to google it although if that's a yardstick for accuracy on such a topic then it's not up to much in itself. Even then you'll find many diverse opinions on a matter that for all intents and purposes should be straight up black and white given the crucial nature of such a doctrine. The fact of the matter is that it isn't, so why not? A bit more in depth research shows how such came about and introduced as 'orthodox' but a quick google search isn't gonna do it...

I'm not asking you to take seriously what you don't believe in. I'm telling you what I believe in...though my purpose in addressing shag wasn't a discourse on hell, but to sharpen the broad and I felt injurious brush he seemed too easy with in painting Christendom.

He made a salient point that many would and do identify with. You can't be surprised at that.

I'd rather listen to Origen's master on the subject. Jesus wasn't ambiguous in Mark 9 or Matthew 25.

Which version of the bible would you be using here? The KJV, the NIV, a literal concordance? They aren't all the same so which in your opinion has the most accurate translation from the original texts? Considering that Origen was one of the original translators I rather think he knew a thing or two along with the other founding fathers so how come most of them didn't garner the same belief that you have in regards to "hell"? Oh, and how about Timothy 2 4:10 ?

If you're contrite nothing diminishes it, but I'm not going to say that those sinners in the hands of an angry God were without value. I'm not even going to suggest that fearing the consequence of our actions is a means to shun as alter calls go, though I'd say for reason's sake that something was already moving in those moved by that message. I'll speak to that point again in a bit.

If fear is central or integral then it simply isn't genuine. Love by the same token can't be coerced else it's just a pretense.

Some men put down their nets and follow with a gesture. Others are struck blind on the road. I leave the methodology that moves to God...for my part, I think the most effective approach to God and grace is found in the loving sacrifice of the cross and how it speaks to our nature and our hope.

And yet more have no such dramatic event happen and plenty are alienated by a doctrine that suggests most of the world is going to such a 'place' in a handbasket, including loved ones etc. Most people balk at the prospect of any sort of torment/suffering let alone an eternal state of such.

Germany had been a strongly religious and overwhelmingly Christian society. That society embraced and empowered Hitler and then looked the other way as the Jews were put into ghettos and then, with the Gypsies and others, sent to the death camps. I don't have an angle and I noted my point in the post.

Sweeping with rather a broad brush yourself now aren't you? How much of German society do you suppose actually knew what was going on? There was plenty of propaganda going on and plenty who didn't support the Nazi regime to boot.

It's a profound argument for the orthodox understanding within Christendom that hell exists as surely as judgment exists, and that it is because of this moral law, as certain as gravity (or more so) that the cross came into being and through it the offering of grace. My particular thoughts beyond that are of no real consequence and I won't submit them again without a fairly strong purpose.

Well death exists and hell=grave so that much certainly is a given. Given that hell/hades/death are supposed to be cast into the lake of fire then the latter is something that perhaps you can describe. It hardly comes over as literal...

And you're the arbiter of what's acceptable and Holy? You, AB, are the judge of evil? Hell isn't a "doctrine". It's a reality spoken to by our Lord. What you accept or do with that is entirely up to you.

No, but I don't feel obliged to just accept any doctrine that even those who believe in its eternal nature when they can't agree on the specifics. Having seen all manner of differing takes and frankly, a sickening lack of compassion in my formative church years in regards to such then I finally took it upon myself to seriously question the origins of 'hell' as orthodoxy and was surprised at the results. If you wish to believe it's an unending state of suffering or 'becoming suffering' then that's your prerogative sure. Doesn't make it true.

That's a silly thing to say.

Without any explanation as to why then that's just a declaration in want of support.

I've never heard of a grave that held what Matthew and Mark describe.

Addressed prior, and I doubt death is a black clad skeleton with a scythe when it's "cast" into the lake of fire either.

What others? Again, to believe in hell is to believe in the context that makes hell real to you. I don't think a blessed soul can be called to a thing they don't believe in by suggesting that that very thing will judge them. A person who feels that conviction is already moved on some level or the proposition is irrational.

I think you'll find that the notion of eternal suffering is irrational to most people, as well as abhorrent.

Then I wouldn't be questioning my judgment, in my estimation, but God's.

How do you know that your belief in what 'hell' comprises of is absolutely correct? You already made a judgment call of your own accord when you postulated that hell isn't a place of fiery torment, that that didn't fit in with your notion of God, recall? There's plenty 'literalist's about who think that's exactly what the lake of fire is...

Hell isn't meant as a place of hope or for love. Those you find on the cross.[/COLOR]

What exactly is it meant for?

 

[Arthur Brain]

I noted what Christ had to say on the subject at two points.


I've stated clearly and categorically what it is, the product of judgment and a separation from God. That's the foundational teaching of the oldest Christian denomination in existence. Catholicism teaches, "The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God." (Catech 1030)"

That fundamental, foundational principle is shared by most of Christendom, is orthodoxy.


I understand you want to reargue the point, but I didn't enter the thread to and simply don't see any constructive point to it.


Who am I to let Origen argue with Augustine and let both of them listen to Christ? Else, supra.


My own. The same as anyone else. The same as you, AB.

:e4e:

Addressed mostly in my latter, and I'm not catholic and neither are you so catechism's in themselves mean little to me really...

:e4e:

 

[Arthur Brain]

And on cue, Arthur, the ruskie, and anna go after the one stating that muslims are barbarians. Speaking of which, barbie would do the same.

:rotfl:

Oh wow, I think you're really just more outright dumb than a troll Nicky...

The consistent stupid on this thread alone kinda confirms it. How many times does it actually need to be stated that people here condemn all kinds of barbaric extremism? let alone the irony that YOU have way more in common with nutballs who would murder people for being gay?

You really do have the IQ of a peanut.

:dunce:

 

[Town Heretic]

Addressed mostly in my latter, and I'm not catholic and neither are you so catechism's in themselves mean little to me really...

:e4e:

It doesn't have to. Catholicism is the largest part of Christendom and hell is in its orthodoxy, as it is with mainstream Protestant churches. That's the only point in noting it, in sustaining the point of orthodoxy.

:e4e:

 

[Arthur Brain]

It doesn't have to. Catholicism is the largest part of Christendom and hell is in its orthodoxy, as it is with mainstream Protestant churches. That's the only point in noting it, in sustaining the point of orthodoxy.

:e4e:

Your belief in regards to what 'hell' comprises of or is is hardly 'orthodox' in any sense be it Catholic or else, so even you only take an 'orthodox' approach to a certain extent.

Recently my neighbour and very good friend died who was in religious terms what you may describe as a lax Catholic. Who she was was a very generous person who would do anything for anyone if she could. Many testified to that at her funeral and at the wake, and I certainly testify to it after her generosity to me through the years. I adopted the stray cat that she had adopted herself about six weeks ago and about an hour ago it brought a ravaged bird into the living room and dropped it on the floor. All I saw at first was feathers and then I saw the bird itself, helpless and terrified at the feet of a cat who was probably intending it as a present. I shouted at the cat and shooed it out of the room and tried to help the bird that was obviously in shock. I didn't want to cause it any pain as I didn't know how badly damaged it was but when I gingerly tried to move it it shrieked and panicked. I couldn't just leave it on the floor though. I managed to pick it up finally when it had calmed down and take it outside but it's touch and go as to whether it can really survive out there. I toyed with the idea of killing it but that's a final resort for me.

Ok, that's nature and the cat was just doing what comes naturally regardless but the whole incident reminded me of this exchange and just why I don't hold truck with any concept or doctrine of suffering. You feel free to believe in your 'orthodox' hell TH. There's little point in continuing this any further really.