Pang, you realise you're trying to argue logic with Minion, right? You might as well slam your head into a brick wall.

Wait. Minion came back to argue religion?

God. Try and be less predictable.

It would certainly be hard to be more predictable.

Well, I guess to do that he would have to come back when some random girl on the boards had a tragic turn of events, and he would try and slime his way into her panties.

That would be more classic minion.

Well, at this point we aren't arguing over religion so much as arguing over hair-splitting linguistic distinctions

Which, okay, still pretty sad, but

Pang, you're so silly!

And example of the law "fulfilled."

The Law:

Deuteronomy 19:21 - "And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot."

Fulfilled:

Matthew 5:38-42 - "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you."

Sounds like he changed it from "kill the killers!" to "kill em with kindness!"

Also,

Hunting: The legal tracking and killing of a wild animal for the sake of food, taxidermy trophy/art, recreation, or trade.

Animal sacrifice: The ritualistic slaughter of a domesticated animal in a religious ceremony, often for the atonement of sins.

Oh, so it's not animal sacrifice (even though an animal is sacrificed)! It's much more pointless. Here I was, giving people too much credit. Thanks Meth! :)

And, once again, the meanings of two different words are being confused.

If Jesus says "this used to be the law; here is a new law" what he's doing THERE is abolishing the old law (But wait! He said he wouldn't do that.) The law has been banished from existence.

To Jesus to fulfill the law of an-eye-for-an-eye would require him to personally engage in an act of precisely mitigatory revenge, which — well, that seems a bit uncharacteristic of him, if I may say so.

So I cruised over to Dictionary.com and looked up "fulfill."

"4. to bring to an end; finish or complete, as a period of time: He felt that life was over when one had fulfilled his threescore years and ten."

Perhaps Christ means that by fulfilling the old law, he brings it to an end, not that he carries it out. Any Greek scholars in the crowd wanna give us insight on the translation of the word "fulfill" as it is used in Matthew 5?

Wow... so you consider "sacrificing" a wild animal for the sake of food, taxidermy trophy/art, recreation, or trade, completely pointless?

What was this thread about again? If I run into Abraham, I'm gonna kick him in the balls for all the trouble he's started.

Well, exactly. But if you interpret "fulfill" as meaning 'bring to an end" then it becomes a near-synonym for "abolish". I don't think it's reasonable to assume that Christ is saying "I come not to end the law, but to end it."

edit: Actually, some translations replace law with "teachings of the prophets" which makes much more sense

As for the hunting, I specifically said "sport" hunting. If you intend to eat what you kill (or trade it to someone else who will eat it), it's not sport.

Like you said earlier, it's a "hair-splitting linguistic distinction" that might be more clear if we knew the original language. Perhaps he's saying something to the effect of: "I haven't come to discredit the teachings of the prophets, but to bring their age to an end."

Could you show me where you're getting your definition for "sport hunting?" Many (perhaps most) people who hunt for sport actually eat what they kill cause they like wild game. You might be confusing sport hunting with poaching.

Well, if you're killing the animal for a practical reason it's not a sport is it

We both know there are plenty of people who hunt just for the sake of hunting and don't do anything more with the meat other than leave it on the ground after they cut off the ever-so-precious trophy skull (or else they drag the entire carcass to a taxidermist). Are these people the majority? No. Didn't say they were.

Practical is a bit of a relative term. Tracking and killing a wild animal and then removing and stuffing it's head or entire body to be put on display as an art piece...wait a sec, why the fuck are we even talking about this shit in here? Where the hell did Janus X go? The thread should be re-titled: islam, the religion of love, interpretations of the fulfillment of Judaic law, and the practicality of taxidermy.

DAMMIT JANUS X COME BACK HERE SO WE CAN YELL AT YOU MORE

ARGUING WITH PEOPLE WHO ARE SMARTER THAN YOU IS A LOT OF WORK

To comment the original post:

If I recall correctly, in the back of the Quran there's a chapter that says what to do when a non-believer crosses your path. "Say: my god is not your god, your god is not my god. I will not accept your god, nor will you accept mine. You then leave them in peace"
or something to that basic effect.

Quran Viewer | Arabic - Yusuf Ali | Surah 109 :: AL-KAFIROON :: (THE DISBELIEVERS, ATHEISTS) :: | mysticletters.com

mind you, that sounds very non-violent to me.

It doesn't fit in the box. :(

Try 'ISLAM: EAT PORK WITH YOUR FORK AND YOU'RE A DORK, ALLAHU-ACKBAR'

Actually, the first crusade was way more "honest" than what most people want to make it look like. Jerusalem had been conquered by Saracens a while ago already. It was only when the Turks kicked the Saracens' out of it and started killing the Christian pilgrims (that the Saracens were accepting) and destroying the Christian places in the city that the Christian world reacted so strongly.

This also gives an example of Islam laws being enforced differently, btw.

After the first crusade, things become way more complicated and become mixed with geopolitical interests, but it's never that simple either.

As for the interpretation of Jesus' message concerning the Old Testament laws, it's not like you guys will come to an agreement on something that is like one of the hottest theological controversy ever ~

Exactly. When I brought it up, I was WELL AWARE of the quote from Matthew, Pang. I was just being a shithead. (But not dumb. :()

Oh well, theological debates for all!

Besides, guys, isn't the fact that we're debating what Jesus meant by his contradictions a perfect analogy to the point of this thread? Islam can be the "religion of love", if you're selective. But it can also be an intolerant religion.

At most, it seems the Abrahamic faiths are characterized more by being contradictory than by kindness/cruelty.

^Truth.

Some religions make it easier to find cruelty than others. It's easier to find hate in Islam texts and Old Testament texts than it is to find it in New Testament texts. You don't need to be "ultraconservative" to find this hate in religious texts, because it's obviously in there and was felt by the people who wrote the books. Doing back bends to turn hateful versus into positive ones is a wasted mental exercise that leads only to self-deception concerning the nature of the authors who wrote the books. Moral revolution in society always comes from humans recognizing suffering in their fellow humans, not from reading 2,000 year old books in a new context. We should all be immensely grateful that our compassion towards others is not restrained by the words of long dead men.

*edit x 25*

Those who keep these hateful texts close to their hearts shouldn't be considered "ultraconservative" or "fanatics" because really, in most cases, they're not. They're just more faithful to their Religious text than the rest of us. That's how they view themselves, and that's how we should view them. We reject the blind faith which all of these religious texts adamantly call for, and we actively reject versus that don't suit our own personal reasoning (in most cases). You can say that these faithful followers are "ignorant", but what exactly are they ignorant of? If anything, they're ignorant to the idea of rejecting religious faith and replacing it with modern day morality. Unfortunately, most people in society still enjoy idolizing the idea of faith so much that they make the object of that faith immaterial.

p.s. It's good to see that there are more people than just me arguing for this position, as it was a year before when I originally created a thread on this subject.

We have a big problem with christians in the US with their horrible hate speak. They vote agianst gay rights, they preach that homosexuality is a sin and maybe once or twice a year they shoot up a church full of homosexuals.

10% of muslims hate the US, 1.200 billion, CAIR (Council on American-Islamic relations) So a pro islamic rights group says there are 1.2 billion so 10% of them hate Western / Euro way of life.

So we have the US here with all these nasty christians talking bad about homosexuals but lets delve into what muslims do.

Iran they are whiped / hung in public. Saudis whip / kill them. When the taliban was in power all gays were casterated / killed.

Granted the bible says to stone them ( in the old testament ) new testament god says judge not least ye be judged.

Do you see gay lead mosques? Do you see gay lead churches? Think about it

So I'm guessing you're pretty gay, huh

No just mildly gay. Ever notice how all these far left people always pick on christians but never make fun of islam? We get all sorts of crap with jesus sucking a cock but what about muhamad? Makes you wonder...

"far left people"?

So you're a gay Republican, then.

Nope, independant I'm also pro choice

A gay libertarian abortionist :(

Makes you wonder what percentage of US/Europeans hate the "Muslim" way of life.