Quran Vs Bible

?
God is Reality.

Reality is exactly what creates slaves when the Truth is that slavery is the only place for them in the economy at that time.

They are like our Min Wage earners today, who toil for basically subsistence on Min Wages from 1960.
That is the best job they can get since the women have doubled the Unskilled Labor Force.
The prices for labor became half what they were.

''Simple economics."
Women wanted to work for half the price men had, and did not care about the Realty, and avoid the Truth I tell you now.

God invented that economic rule.

 

"Peace comes to a person as if it was inside him."
But peace on earth does not.

War is the history man has reported.
One war after the next, as we look at Iran now, and see war on the horizon.

"Love thy enemy" is what Jesus said, not love your own peace.

 

That isn't the story the Bible tells. In the Bible, God is a character who makes decisions.

Then get back to proving that all societies practiced and depended upon slavery.

I'm sure it did to most of the slaves.

You are talking about something different. There are numerous examples of non-voluntary slavery in the Bible, advocated by Biblical law.

- - - Updated - - -

By the same logic, machines are employees who are compensated with maintenance. I've grown up in the South for long enough to grow tired of this disgusting "justification". There is a world of difference between voluntary employment and involuntary slavery.

 

I never said that. Are you unfamiliar with the concept of the Commons? When the Commons existed, property rights still existed. The difference was that people had property rights to property that they were able to make use of themselves. That left huge tracks of open land that people could use to catch food or grown food. Then aristocrats came and planted flags in ground that they did not yet have means to cultivate themselves, they used violence to prevent anyone else to use that land, and then they restricted use of that land so that only their serfs could work on it.

I haven't advocated communism. That's all in your imagination.

Again, not advocating communism.

Distribution is fact, like it or not. All I've said is that someone who owns more will be doing a more moral act through charity than they would through slavery. Charity is, by definition, a voluntary act. Communism, on the other hand, is forced redistribution.

I call it slavery when people abuse their share in order to force others into being owned in order to survive. Where is the falsehood in that?

And yet again, I have to ask someone to stop lying about me. If you want my opinions on Marx, ask for them. Don't put words in my mouth. Marxism is a despicable system that is rife with unfounded economic theory (the labor theory of value) and with every bit as much potential for murderous ends as any religious system.

I've advocated voluntary charity and altruism. If you don't understand the difference between that and Marxism, then I fear you don't understand Christianity, else you would be labeling Jesus a Marxist.

 

Because of the actions of those who exploit them. You don't have to be a Marxist to understand that slavery involves exploitation. Again, if you were right about it being an economic necessity, you should be ready to prove that all societies have practiced slavery.

No, they aren't. Min wage earners are not slaves. Slaves are slaves. Please stop making this morally and intellectually irresponsible comparison.

I have no idea how you mean to connect that to our discussion.

A God that can't do better than that sounds pretty powerless.

 

I’m not going into another entirely different topic. You want to know whether Mt 5:17-20 means that Paul contradicted Jesus when he proposed that Gentile Christians shouldn’t be made to follow Jewish food and purity laws, don't you?

To find out what a word/verse/passage means the first thing you have to do is to look at both its textual and historical context. And you’ll find that whenever the Gospel Matthew uses the very same word πληρῶσαι=to fulfil it says that an event in Jesus’ live happened to “fulfil” xy-prophecy from the OT. We have no reason to think it means something else in Mt. 5:17.
Also you’ll find that throughout Matthew Jesus has a very different idea of how to best follow Jewish laws than the Pharisees do. He’s looking for the spirit of grace and mercy behind Jewish scripture and weighs its laws accordingly.
So if you want to tell me that Paul would have been acting like Jesus had he told the Gentiles that they must follow Jewish food and purity laws before being allowed to join the Christian community, even though most of them wouldn’t have been able to afford kosher food on pagan markets and even though it would have been pretty tough for grown men to cut off their foreskin in times in which anaesthetics hadn’t been invented, I must say no: such empty merciless legalism would not have been in the Spirit of Christ as presented in the Gospel of Matthew.

And to be honest I suspect that you don’t like Paul for entirely different reasons: Many remarks of his sound misogynistic/homophobic to our modern ears and many modern day Christians use them accordingly to justify their own cultural bigotry. I’d say these Christians are wrong and that they too forget to consider textual and socio-historical context.

 

On the other hand the use of the word "is" when included with the word "still" forming "is still" forms a clause that represents or is indicative of a present tense.

See my paragraph above.

 

??? It IS post #793 silly.

 

It is the present tense, as is the "God either invents slavery or reintroduces it" was. I've already explained this, and I've explained my language before. I'm writing as an English major. We frequently talk about books in the present tense. You conspiracy theory is getting old. Do I need to go back and repost the explanation that you pretended to acknowledge earlier?

See the post you were quoting, which is in the present tense and clarifies that part that you are abusing.

 

... so, U think sexual promiscuity today is OK, even though Paul said it is an evil that the Gays and harlots promote?

Christians are wrong on this?
Christians are just against Gays for no reason at all?

Is that what you mean?
What about the child abuse of all the fatherless kids born and raised by the single mothers today?
Are Christians against them for no reason??

 

The OT never tells us more about "God" than he was The Creator.
But Christ says he is the personification of Truth, itself.

He says, "I am the Truth, and the way and the life" for men to follow, "the light" into the future which will come.

So if the son-of-god is Truth, he is the image of "god", hence the Reality which unfolds forevermore and give birth to the Truth of what He has made real.

 

What a beautiful demonstration of your tortured interpretations.

 

If you want to you can, but it would be irrelevant to the current status of this discussion. Your admission above that it is present tense reinforces my contention that you are declaring that God is still commanding... which in turn is an acknowledgement of the current existence of God. Can God still be doing something if God were non-existing; Yes or No?

Answer my question above honestly and it will be seen who is abusing what?

 

#792 then.

 

I love how the literal words are somehow a "tortured interpretation." According to the Bible, slavery did not exist yet during. God sentenced Canaan to slavery at a time when slavery did not previously exist. Have you still not read the verses?

 

Then you clearly never understood it to begin with.

Have you seriously never taken an English class?

Can God, as a character in a book, do these things? And is it common to talk about literary criticism using the present tense? Yes and yes.

Now, I'll ask you again to stop lying.

Answered above. You've been given this same answer before. Can you make it through a discussion without sophistry?

 

Now that is another one of those declarations based on assumption. Can you show proof regarding my level of understanding?

Seriously? You are asking a question whose answer is obvious. Yes! It is a required curriculum in the schools throughout the United States. A very distasteful innuendo, IMHO.

Rewording the question is not answering the question. That is an evasion of the question.

Show where a lie has been told. If you cannot show proof of a lie being told, then you are fabricating a false statement against my character.

The answers you have given are not persuasive and therefore my mind is not compelled to accept those answers as true. Can you show PROOF that any of my arguments are 'false'? Proof being 'evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.'

 

I provided clarification and your continued objections ignore that clarification. You either don’t understand the clarification, you are deliberately ignoring it or you are trolling. If you do not accept my clarification and explanation of the meaning of my own words, then you fit in that final category.

You are unfamiliar with a basic convention of English literary criticism, so I had to ask.

The answer to your other question is no, I don’t believe God exists. The rewording clarified my original statement, which you still don’t understand.

You have said that my statement is an acknowledgement of the existence of God. That is a lie. At first, it could have just been a legitimate misunderstanding, but you have continued to make a false accusation after being repeatedly corrected. At this point, it is a legitimate falsehood.

What part do you not understand:
1) The frequent use of present tense in literary criticism, which you should have learned in your English classes or
2) My previous explanation of my meaning, which you pretended to understand, and which also should have been covered in your English classes

I’ve explained what my words mean and you have assigned another meaning to them. I ask you again to stop lying about my statements.

By your same logic: can you show PROOF that your arguments are not actually a veiled acceptance that God does not exist and that I am correct? Can you provide PROOF that your own words say what you claim them to mean?

 

Before continuing this discussion, you need to understand the concept of the historic present tense (also called the dramatic present or narrative present). You should have encountered this in your English classes.

http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/Usage/faq0047.html
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/historical+present
http://grammar.about.com/od/fh/g/histpreterm.htm
http://www.usingenglish.com/glossary/historic-present.html
http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/Usage/faq0187.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_present

The sentence you are misreading was written in the historic/dramatic/narrative present tense as is conventional for writing about literature and as is suggested by The Chicago Manual of Style and, I would have to double-check this, the APA Style Guide.

 

And yet you maintain your accusations without showing any PROOF of your claims. No need to go any further into your critiquing of my writing skills.

 

It isn't your writing skills that are in question, just your comprehension skills since you don't understand the statement you are criticizing. The sentence was written in historical/dramatic/narrative present tense. My PROOF that my words mean what I say they mean is THAT I WAS THE ONE WHO WROTE THEM.

 

Then your PROOF is your proof alone and does not necessarily represent a PROOF to anyone or everyone else. Now see how dangerous that word "PROOF" can really be? The 'Bible' can be a PROOF to Theists that God is real, that God exists.... yet that same PROOF that serves the Theists may not be PROOF to others.

 

If my own account of my own words is not acceptable as clarification, then you aren't really here to discuss anything. You can invent any meaning you want and assign it to my words and then claim that I can't prove I meant something else. It that's how you want to continue, I have no desire to continue, or to sit here and see you make up lies about my claims. This is trolling. This discussion is over.

 

I don't like or dislike Paul. IMO, he had no authority to tell anyone how they should act in the name of christ. Period. And he contradicts Jesus many times.

 

So, the definition of the word PROOF even as demonstrated in your words "My PROOF that my words mean what I say they mean is THAT I WAS THE ONE WHO WROTE THEM." , has caused you to now decide to withdraw from further discussion of this subject matter. You have been shown that the type of "PROOF" that is acceptable to you is comparative to a PROOF for others is what they deem to be PROOF.

www.tfd.com/proof
proof
(pro͞of)n.1. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.