51% Of American Muslims Want Sharia... (NOT in All Caps Now..)

[Pumpkin Row]

99% of RWnuts think America is a Christian nation, and want the laws to be adjusted accordingly...

...aka the Christian version of Sharia.

Christians do not call for the murder of non Christians,

Nor do secularists who want the insanity of religion out of the rationality of governance.

insanity is believing the you are the center of the universe. Like it or not, our country was founded on judeo Christian principles and beliefs. But the founders also made provisions for non believers like you to have all the benefits of the country with no obligation to follow any religion. Unlike muslim nations where non believers are killed.

Democracy is a Judeo-Christian belief? A Democratic Republic is a Judeo-Christian belief?

Oh wow, someone who doesn't know what our form of government is. We're a Constitutional/Federal Republic, not a Democratic Republic OR a Democracy.

 

[NYcarbineer]

99% of RWnuts think America is a Christian nation, and want the laws to be adjusted accordingly...

...aka the Christian version of Sharia.

Christians do not call for the murder of non Christians,

Nor do secularists who want the insanity of religion out of the rationality of governance.

insanity is believing the you are the center of the universe. Like it or not, our country was founded on judeo Christian principles and beliefs. But the founders also made provisions for non believers like you to have all the benefits of the country with no obligation to follow any religion. Unlike muslim nations where non believers are killed.

Democracy is a Judeo-Christian belief? A Democratic Republic is a Judeo-Christian belief?

Oh wow, someone who doesn't know what our form of government is. We're a Constitutional/Federal Republic, not a Democratic Republic OR a Democracy.

You're an idiot. We are a Democracy. We are a democratic republic, which is a form of democracy.

 

[NYcarbineer]

99% of RWnuts think America is a Christian nation, and want the laws to be adjusted accordingly...

...aka the Christian version of Sharia.

Christians do not call for the murder of non Christians,

Nor do secularists who want the insanity of religion out of the rationality of governance.

insanity is believing the you are the center of the universe. Like it or not, our country was founded on judeo Christian principles and beliefs. But the founders also made provisions for non believers like you to have all the benefits of the country with no obligation to follow any religion. Unlike muslim nations where non believers are killed.

Democracy is a Judeo-Christian belief? A Democratic Republic is a Judeo-Christian belief?

yes and yes

Cite the Biblical passages that call for democratic government.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Christians do not call for the murder of non Christians,

Nor do secularists who want the insanity of religion out of the rationality of governance.

insanity is believing the you are the center of the universe. Like it or not, our country was founded on judeo Christian principles and beliefs. But the founders also made provisions for non believers like you to have all the benefits of the country with no obligation to follow any religion. Unlike muslim nations where non believers are killed.

Democracy is a Judeo-Christian belief? A Democratic Republic is a Judeo-Christian belief?

Oh wow, someone who doesn't know what our form of government is. We're a Constitutional/Federal Republic, not a Democratic Republic OR a Democracy.

You're an idiot. We are a Democracy. We are a democratic republic, which is a form of democracy.

Only people who have NO idea how the election system works are willing to claim such a fallacy. America is not a Democracy. It is not, never was, nor ever was intended to be a Democracy. Democracy is a terrible system, where the people rule, and it is maintained by violence, mob rule, and envy against those who rise above the others. That meaning does make it easier to understand why Liberals love calling it a Democracy, it's because they want the middle and lower class to hate those who succeed. A Republic is designed to shackle both the Government AND the people, while also giving choices to the people, so that neither rules over the other completely. It makes both the citizens and the government check and balance each other. That's one of the many reasons we have multiple branches of government, the constitution, and voting. Democracy doesn't have those, it only has the power of the citizens, allowing them to oppress their government. Much like worker's unions oppress the business they work for.

 

[Flopper]

So why are we importing the tool of our own nation's demise?

Welcome to Obama's 'Fundamental Change'! Unfortunately there are a LOT of Americans (Liberals) whose light hasn't come on yet.

Obama admittedly was / has:

- Sired by an Anti-American, anti-colonialist father who wanted the US eliminated as a world power and influence...

- Tutored by Communist Frank Marshall Davis...

- Studied Socialist Saul Alinsky - even quoted him during an Inauguration speech

- Mentored for decades by a hate-spewing racist anti-American 'pastor',

- Friends with a domestic terrorist who bombed his own country and killed cops

- Declared he would stand with Muslims if the political winds blow ugly

- Declared the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam (Convert to Islam or die, as in no future for YOU...sound familiar)

- Armed the terrorist group the Muslim Brotherhood

- Armed Al Qaeda

- Dragged the US into the middle of a civil war between a dictator we put into power - WHO WAS JUST BEGINNING TO HELP US COMBAT TERRORISTS IN NTHRN AFRCIA - and Al Qaeida, perpetrators of 9/11/01 and 9/11/12, to help Al Qaeida kill Qadaffi and take over their own nation as a safe haven....all this at a time when Obama was declaring Al Qaeida was on the run!

- Supplied, Armed, Trained, & Protected ISIS, dropped leaflets to them, after the Paris attack, to warn them that French and Russian bombers were coming to drop bombs on the ISIS Black Market oil facilities Obama was protecting that funded 50% of their terrorist activities - to include the Paris attack (can you say 'aiding and abetting the enemy'?!)

- Mocked Americans over their concerns for our national security and their safety, even after he admitted his 'vetting process' was virtually non-existent - claiming all they had to fear after the Paris attacks were 'widows and orphans' - only to have the terrorist to whom his administration gave a visa murder 12 Americans in California

Obama has sacrificed American lives for his personal political benefit / re-election. He has defended Islam by blaming a video for the needless murder of 4 Americans, by calling a terrorist attack a case of 'workplace violence', by sending out his AG to threaten Americans with punishment if they exercised their right to Free Speech, by having his DHS openly declare Conservatives (who he called his 'enemies' and whom he used his IRS to target) greater threats than Islamic extremists, & has lectured the very same Americans he has bullied and vilified who are being targeted by Radical Islamists.


Obama has failed to protect Iraq, a nation our nation's soldiers had liberated at great cost, by allowing ISIS to freely enter Iraq without opposition, while he supplied/armed/trained/protected them and called them a 'JV Team'.



Despite admitting his vetting process is virtually non-existent...

Despite his FBI already spread beyond the breaking point investigating 1,000 cases involving ISIS threats in the US...

Despite ISIS declaring they are going to infiltrate the refugees...

Despite his CIA warning ISIS IS infiltrating the 'refugees' coming in...

Despite more successful terrorist attacks having been carried out under his administration than any in our nation's history...

Despite the American body count directly tied to his policies and actions Obama CONTINUES to bring in hundreds of un-vetted Muslims from a civil war-torn nation - a war between terrorists Obama has supported and a dictator - that is the home base for ISIS!


Arizona, Tennessee, Texas, California, Benghazi, Florida...while the bodies keep piling up Obama's DHS is declaring the enemy is AMERICANS and works to 'ban' the words 'Jihad' and 'Sharia' as Obama refuses to say the words 'Radical Islam' and 'Islamic extremists' because 'it means we are at war with all of Islam'.


Why is he still President? Nothing to see here...move along.


You are being redirected...

If you're claim is that 51% of American Muslims want strict enforcement of Shari law in the US, your claim is ridiculous. In Muslim countries with stronger democratic governments, most Muslims do no want Sharia integrated into local laws.

In Indonesia which is 87% Muslim and has the largest Muslim population in the world, over 2/3 of the Muslims believe the teaching of the Quran, should either be left out of local laws or only influence them. This is also the case in other more democratic Muslim countries such Turkey and Lebanon.

A 2011 poll found that 46% of American Muslims identified themselves as Muslims first and Americans second which is the same as Christians. The same poll found that less than 1% of American Muslims believed their was any justification terrorism.

The Divide Over Islam and National Laws in the Muslim World
Muslim Americans: No Signs of Growth in Alienation or Support for Extremism

 

[RandallFlagg]

You are out of your mind, providing there was one to begin with.

99% of the conservative Christians on this board defended Kim Davis when she tried to use her religion to assert a right to circumvent the Constitution.

That is how it goes with those people.

Where in the Constitution of the United States does it give gays the "right" to marry? Where. I would LOVE to see this, because no where does it give the "right" of ANYONE to marry.

Get ready to feel the LOVE.

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Our laws bestow gifts on married people. Joint tax returns, Social Security survivor benefits, and a thousand others. Gays are entitled to equal protections granted in those laws.

I'll ask you one more time - Where in the Constitution does it give ANYONE the right to marry? Where? Where? Where?

Read the part I bolded in red, just for you.

If the government decides to bestow cash and prizes on married people, then ALL married people are entitled to the cash and prizes bestowed by those laws.

The Constitution gives Congress the authority to write laws, including laws bestowing cash and prized on married people. The Constitution gives equal protection of those laws to everyone. So there you go, retard.

Huh?

 

[FA_Q2]

99% of RWnuts think America is a Christian nation, and want the laws to be adjusted accordingly...

...aka the Christian version of Sharia.

The problem is in Muslim controlled countries, they kill people they disagree with it's a right and privilege to do so. Name and show somewhere in Jesus's teachings he tells Christians do in the same? And be specific...
Knock the deflecting off Jack ass

Who do they kill in Indonesia?

Islamic State Claims Deadly Indonesia Attacks

The Indonesian government does not condone those attacks. It is not a right or privilege Indonesia to kill people you disagree with.

Saudi Arabia. Apostasy and blasphemy against Sunni Islam can be punished by death there. Other religions cannot be openly practiced.

To be fair, flopper has pointed out a Muslim country that does not do such things. I believe it is more related on how integrated the church is with the state. In the dark ages the Cristian church was combined with the state and they were in much the same position where other religious practices were essentially illegal. Christians have learned from that and separated the two in most places on the planet but Muslims have not. There are several states that still exist today that are essentially Muslim theocracies.

 

[Seawytch]

No, they can't...and haven't been able to since the 1960s. Title II of the Civil Rights Act. Oh, and it's been challenged all the way to the SCOTUS. Can you guess the final ruling? Public Accommodation laws, which say you can't refuse service to anyone for any reason, are constitutional.

Oh, that's cute, you think you know things. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prevents discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin. If you don't tell them your reason to deny the service, then yes, you can deny service for ALL of those reasons. The right of public accommodation is also guaranteed to disabled citizens under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits discrimination by private businesses based on disability, but again, you can deny service for those reasons, too, as long as it's not stated and it isn't store policy. The refusal just can't be arbitrary, and you can't just apply it to one group of people, and there must be a reason. As stated before, you don't have a right to force people to serve you.

This site explains it well enough.

You went a really long way to avoid admitting you were wrong. You were wrong, plain and simple. You can't deny service "to anyone for any reason" as you claimed.

As I just explained, Mr. Illiterate, you CAN, you just can't tell them it's for the reasons I listed. Here I didn't think reading was that complicated, yet you're proving that for some people, it's the hardest thing in the world. Maybe you just don't comprehend basic English.

It's Mrs and all you did was reiterate how wrong you were. Your statement that you have the right to deny service for any reason was false, you can't and case law backs that up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Again I explained that it can be for any reason, just specific reasons can't be stated, then sent you a link that you clearly didn't read. It's painful to see people like you who apparently can't read properly.

Which is you just saying you were wrong. We knew you were wrong from the get go. You didn't know you were wrong, now you do. You're welcome.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Oh, that's cute, you think you know things. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prevents discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin. If you don't tell them your reason to deny the service, then yes, you can deny service for ALL of those reasons. The right of public accommodation is also guaranteed to disabled citizens under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits discrimination by private businesses based on disability, but again, you can deny service for those reasons, too, as long as it's not stated and it isn't store policy. The refusal just can't be arbitrary, and you can't just apply it to one group of people, and there must be a reason. As stated before, you don't have a right to force people to serve you.

This site explains it well enough.

You went a really long way to avoid admitting you were wrong. You were wrong, plain and simple. You can't deny service "to anyone for any reason" as you claimed.

As I just explained, Mr. Illiterate, you CAN, you just can't tell them it's for the reasons I listed. Here I didn't think reading was that complicated, yet you're proving that for some people, it's the hardest thing in the world. Maybe you just don't comprehend basic English.

It's Mrs and all you did was reiterate how wrong you were. Your statement that you have the right to deny service for any reason was false, you can't and case law backs that up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Again I explained that it can be for any reason, just specific reasons can't be stated, then sent you a link that you clearly didn't read. It's painful to see people like you who apparently can't read properly.

Which is you just saying you were wrong. We knew you were wrong from the get go. You didn't know you were wrong, now you do. You're welcome.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

At this point, I highly doubt you graduated from college, since it looks like you'd fail reading comprehension every single time.

 

[Seawytch]

You went a really long way to avoid admitting you were wrong. You were wrong, plain and simple. You can't deny service "to anyone for any reason" as you claimed.

As I just explained, Mr. Illiterate, you CAN, you just can't tell them it's for the reasons I listed. Here I didn't think reading was that complicated, yet you're proving that for some people, it's the hardest thing in the world. Maybe you just don't comprehend basic English.

It's Mrs and all you did was reiterate how wrong you were. Your statement that you have the right to deny service for any reason was false, you can't and case law backs that up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Again I explained that it can be for any reason, just specific reasons can't be stated, then sent you a link that you clearly didn't read. It's painful to see people like you who apparently can't read properly.

Which is you just saying you were wrong. We knew you were wrong from the get go. You didn't know you were wrong, now you do. You're welcome.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

At this point, I highly doubt you graduated from college, since it looks like you'd fail reading comprehension every single time.

I didn't go to college, I joined the military instead, but that has nothing to do with the fact that you were flat out wrong and can't admit it.

You wrongly claimed that a business owner had the right to refuse service at any time for any reason. You were wrong and were proven wrong. Instead of saying "my bad", you decided "well, the business owner can lie". While that is true, it does not make your original claim true.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Seawytch]

I thought you were a Christian, you don't know the difference between the old and new Testament and what that's supposed to mean to Christians, Jake? I'm not a Christian and I know that.

Anyway, we have Millions of Muslims doing that today and no Christians. And you don't see the difference?

I am not concerned what a shallow thinker like you perceives, other than to make sure your shallowness is noted.

I read the writings of Father Abraham in the three great religions regularly. I understand them; they are no mystery.

That you don’t get it is obvious.

It's funny how you repeatedly can't address the points made by a "shallow thinker" like me. But a good question to ask in church this week would be the difference between the old and new testaments. Hint, they aren't the same to Christians ...

I thought is was all god's word, no?

So what you are saying then is that the old testament is bullshit to be ignored by christians --- even though it MAY BE god's word --- and the new testament is the real stuff?

It's like everyone who hates Christians reads from the same handbook. No, the old Testament was rules for Jews, as they were selected as God's people for spreading "the word", when they began bringing the word to the Gentiles and the final sacrifice was made, God made a new covenant. Christians do not follow Moses' law, because they're not Jews. Nothing about the Old Testament is 'BS', the rules are just no longer followed because of Christ's sacrifice.

So why include the OT if none of the rules put forth in it are followed? And if what you say is true, what does this mean?

“It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.” (Luke 16:17)

Another quick question since we're on the subject, Leviticus lists a whole bunch of incestuous relationships that are to be avoided. Since there is no NT reference, are these things okay now?

6 “None of you shall approach any one of his close relatives to uncover nakedness. I am the Lord. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, which is the nakedness of your mother; she is your mother, you shall not uncover her nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife; it is your father’s nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your sister, your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether brought up in the family or in another home. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter-in-law; she is your son’s wife, you shall not uncover her nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother’s wife; it is your brother’s nakedness. rival wife to her sister, uncovering her nakedness while her sister is still alive.

Speaking of reading and comprehension Pumpkin Row, you never answered my bible questions...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Pumpkin Row]

As I just explained, Mr. Illiterate, you CAN, you just can't tell them it's for the reasons I listed. Here I didn't think reading was that complicated, yet you're proving that for some people, it's the hardest thing in the world. Maybe you just don't comprehend basic English.

It's Mrs and all you did was reiterate how wrong you were. Your statement that you have the right to deny service for any reason was false, you can't and case law backs that up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Again I explained that it can be for any reason, just specific reasons can't be stated, then sent you a link that you clearly didn't read. It's painful to see people like you who apparently can't read properly.

Which is you just saying you were wrong. We knew you were wrong from the get go. You didn't know you were wrong, now you do. You're welcome.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

At this point, I highly doubt you graduated from college, since it looks like you'd fail reading comprehension every single time.

I didn't go to college, I joined the military instead, but that has nothing to do with the fact that you were flat out wrong and can't admit it.

You wrongly claimed that a business owner had the right to refuse service at any time for any reason. You were wrong and were proven wrong. Instead of saying "my bad", you decided "well, the business owner can lie". While that is true, it does not make your original claim true.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It does make my claim true, because the true reason isn't the same as a given reason. Why don't you just admit you were wrong?

Thank you for your service.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

I am not concerned what a shallow thinker like you perceives, other than to make sure your shallowness is noted.

I read the writings of Father Abraham in the three great religions regularly. I understand them; they are no mystery.

That you don’t get it is obvious.

It's funny how you repeatedly can't address the points made by a "shallow thinker" like me. But a good question to ask in church this week would be the difference between the old and new testaments. Hint, they aren't the same to Christians ...

I thought is was all god's word, no?

So what you are saying then is that the old testament is bullshit to be ignored by christians --- even though it MAY BE god's word --- and the new testament is the real stuff?

It's like everyone who hates Christians reads from the same handbook. No, the old Testament was rules for Jews, as they were selected as God's people for spreading "the word", when they began bringing the word to the Gentiles and the final sacrifice was made, God made a new covenant. Christians do not follow Moses' law, because they're not Jews. Nothing about the Old Testament is 'BS', the rules are just no longer followed because of Christ's sacrifice.

So why include the OT if none of the rules put forth in it are followed? And if what you say is true, what does this mean?

“It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.” (Luke 16:17)

Another quick question since we're on the subject, Leviticus lists a whole bunch of incestuous relationships that are to be avoided. Since there is no NT reference, are these things okay now?

6 “None of you shall approach any one of his close relatives to uncover nakedness. I am the Lord. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, which is the nakedness of your mother; she is your mother, you shall not uncover her nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife; it is your father’s nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your sister, your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether brought up in the family or in another home. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter-in-law; she is your son’s wife, you shall not uncover her nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother’s wife; it is your brother’s nakedness. rival wife to her sister, uncovering her nakedness while her sister is still alive.

Speaking of reading and comprehension Pumpkin Row, you never answered my bible questions...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The old Testament was included because it's part of the Bible's history, and also because it contained the laws for the Jews, and rules for hygiene. I've been getting a lot of notifications, I probably missed this post within them because you were on there multiple times, and I thought it was a previous post.

He was telling them to continue following the Jewish law, because that was the civilization that they lived in. In broader definition, he was telling people to follow the laws of their people, much like we follow American laws.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It's funny how you repeatedly can't address the points made by a "shallow thinker" like me. But a good question to ask in church this week would be the difference between the old and new testaments. Hint, they aren't the same to Christians ...

I thought is was all god's word, no?

So what you are saying then is that the old testament is bullshit to be ignored by christians --- even though it MAY BE god's word --- and the new testament is the real stuff?

It's like everyone who hates Christians reads from the same handbook. No, the old Testament was rules for Jews, as they were selected as God's people for spreading "the word", when they began bringing the word to the Gentiles and the final sacrifice was made, God made a new covenant. Christians do not follow Moses' law, because they're not Jews. Nothing about the Old Testament is 'BS', the rules are just no longer followed because of Christ's sacrifice.

So why include the OT if none of the rules put forth in it are followed? And if what you say is true, what does this mean?

“It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.” (Luke 16:17)

Another quick question since we're on the subject, Leviticus lists a whole bunch of incestuous relationships that are to be avoided. Since there is no NT reference, are these things okay now?

6 “None of you shall approach any one of his close relatives to uncover nakedness. I am the Lord. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, which is the nakedness of your mother; she is your mother, you shall not uncover her nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife; it is your father’s nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your sister, your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether brought up in the family or in another home. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter-in-law; she is your son’s wife, you shall not uncover her nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother’s wife; it is your brother’s nakedness. rival wife to her sister, uncovering her nakedness while her sister is still alive.

Speaking of reading and comprehension Pumpkin Row, you never answered my bible questions...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The old Testament was included because it's part of the Bible's history, and also because it contained the laws for the Jews, and rules for hygiene. I've been getting a lot of notifications, I probably missed this post within them because you were on there multiple times, and I thought it was a previous post.

He was telling them to continue following the Jewish law, because that was the civilization that they lived in. In broader definition, he was telling people to follow the laws of their people, much like we follow American laws.

You silly goose. No, that is not what he was saying.

 

[Seawytch]

It's Mrs and all you did was reiterate how wrong you were. Your statement that you have the right to deny service for any reason was false, you can't and case law backs that up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Again I explained that it can be for any reason, just specific reasons can't be stated, then sent you a link that you clearly didn't read. It's painful to see people like you who apparently can't read properly.

Which is you just saying you were wrong. We knew you were wrong from the get go. You didn't know you were wrong, now you do. You're welcome.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

At this point, I highly doubt you graduated from college, since it looks like you'd fail reading comprehension every single time.

I didn't go to college, I joined the military instead, but that has nothing to do with the fact that you were flat out wrong and can't admit it.

You wrongly claimed that a business owner had the right to refuse service at any time for any reason. You were wrong and were proven wrong. Instead of saying "my bad", you decided "well, the business owner can lie". While that is true, it does not make your original claim true.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It does make my claim true, because the true reason isn't the same as a given reason. Why don't you just admit you were wrong?

Thank you for your service.

I wasn't the one who was mistaken, you were when you claimed a business had the right to deny anyone service for any reason. You got called out on it, educated yourself and then instead of admitting you were mistaken you came up with the addendum "if they lie".




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Seawytch]

It's funny how you repeatedly can't address the points made by a "shallow thinker" like me. But a good question to ask in church this week would be the difference between the old and new testaments. Hint, they aren't the same to Christians ...

I thought is was all god's word, no?

So what you are saying then is that the old testament is bullshit to be ignored by christians --- even though it MAY BE god's word --- and the new testament is the real stuff?

It's like everyone who hates Christians reads from the same handbook. No, the old Testament was rules for Jews, as they were selected as God's people for spreading "the word", when they began bringing the word to the Gentiles and the final sacrifice was made, God made a new covenant. Christians do not follow Moses' law, because they're not Jews. Nothing about the Old Testament is 'BS', the rules are just no longer followed because of Christ's sacrifice.

So why include the OT if none of the rules put forth in it are followed? And if what you say is true, what does this mean?

“It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.” (Luke 16:17)

Another quick question since we're on the subject, Leviticus lists a whole bunch of incestuous relationships that are to be avoided. Since there is no NT reference, are these things okay now?

6 “None of you shall approach any one of his close relatives to uncover nakedness. I am the Lord. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, which is the nakedness of your mother; she is your mother, you shall not uncover her nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife; it is your father’s nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your sister, your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether brought up in the family or in another home. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter-in-law; she is your son’s wife, you shall not uncover her nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother’s wife; it is your brother’s nakedness. rival wife to her sister, uncovering her nakedness while her sister is still alive.

Speaking of reading and comprehension Pumpkin Row, you never answered my bible questions...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The old Testament was included because it's part of the Bible's history, and also because it contained the laws for the Jews, and rules for hygiene. I've been getting a lot of notifications, I probably missed this post within them because you were on there multiple times, and I thought it was a previous post.

He was telling them to continue following the Jewish law, because that was the civilization that they lived in. In broader definition, he was telling people to follow the laws of their people, much like we follow American laws.

So follow the law but don't follow the law?!? Come on, try again.

You also didn't answer the second part...these restrictions are not in the NT...does that mean there are no longer biblical restrictions on them?


6 “None of you shall approach any one of his close relatives to uncover nakedness. I am the Lord. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, which is the nakedness of your mother; she is your mother, you shall not uncover her nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife; it is your father’s nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your sister, your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether brought up in the family or in another home. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter-in-law; she is your son’s wife, you shall not uncover her nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother’s wife; it is your brother’s nakedness. rival wife to her sister, uncovering her nakedness while her sister is still alive.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Pumpkin Row]

I thought is was all god's word, no?

So what you are saying then is that the old testament is bullshit to be ignored by christians --- even though it MAY BE god's word --- and the new testament is the real stuff?

It's like everyone who hates Christians reads from the same handbook. No, the old Testament was rules for Jews, as they were selected as God's people for spreading "the word", when they began bringing the word to the Gentiles and the final sacrifice was made, God made a new covenant. Christians do not follow Moses' law, because they're not Jews. Nothing about the Old Testament is 'BS', the rules are just no longer followed because of Christ's sacrifice.

So why include the OT if none of the rules put forth in it are followed? And if what you say is true, what does this mean?

“It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.” (Luke 16:17)

Another quick question since we're on the subject, Leviticus lists a whole bunch of incestuous relationships that are to be avoided. Since there is no NT reference, are these things okay now?

6 “None of you shall approach any one of his close relatives to uncover nakedness. I am the Lord. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, which is the nakedness of your mother; she is your mother, you shall not uncover her nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife; it is your father’s nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your sister, your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether brought up in the family or in another home. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter-in-law; she is your son’s wife, you shall not uncover her nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother’s wife; it is your brother’s nakedness. rival wife to her sister, uncovering her nakedness while her sister is still alive.

Speaking of reading and comprehension Pumpkin Row, you never answered my bible questions...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The old Testament was included because it's part of the Bible's history, and also because it contained the laws for the Jews, and rules for hygiene. I've been getting a lot of notifications, I probably missed this post within them because you were on there multiple times, and I thought it was a previous post.

He was telling them to continue following the Jewish law, because that was the civilization that they lived in. In broader definition, he was telling people to follow the laws of their people, much like we follow American laws.

So follow the law but don't follow the law?!? Come on, try again.

You also didn't answer the second part...these restrictions are not in the NT...does that mean there are no longer biblical restrictions on them?


6 “None of you shall approach any one of his close relatives to uncover nakedness. I am the Lord. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, which is the nakedness of your mother; she is your mother, you shall not uncover her nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife; it is your father’s nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your sister, your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether brought up in the family or in another home. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter-in-law; she is your son’s wife, you shall not uncover her nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother’s wife; it is your brother’s nakedness. rival wife to her sister, uncovering her nakedness while her sister is still alive.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's not even close to what I said. I said Jesus is likely telling Christians to follow the laws of your civilization. Christians are not currently in a Jewish civilization that adheres to the laws the pharisees set MANY years ago. What God tells Christians to do in the New Testament are the laws for Christians.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Again I explained that it can be for any reason, just specific reasons can't be stated, then sent you a link that you clearly didn't read. It's painful to see people like you who apparently can't read properly.

Which is you just saying you were wrong. We knew you were wrong from the get go. You didn't know you were wrong, now you do. You're welcome.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

At this point, I highly doubt you graduated from college, since it looks like you'd fail reading comprehension every single time.

I didn't go to college, I joined the military instead, but that has nothing to do with the fact that you were flat out wrong and can't admit it.

You wrongly claimed that a business owner had the right to refuse service at any time for any reason. You were wrong and were proven wrong. Instead of saying "my bad", you decided "well, the business owner can lie". While that is true, it does not make your original claim true.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It does make my claim true, because the true reason isn't the same as a given reason. Why don't you just admit you were wrong?

Thank you for your service.

I wasn't the one who was mistaken, you were when you claimed a business had the right to deny anyone service for any reason. You got called out on it, educated yourself and then instead of admitting you were mistaken you came up with the addendum "if they lie".




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I wasn't mistaken, I explained why I wasn't mistaken. You certainly aren't much of a reader.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It's like everyone who hates Christians reads from the same handbook. No, the old Testament was rules for Jews, as they were selected as God's people for spreading "the word", when they began bringing the word to the Gentiles and the final sacrifice was made, God made a new covenant. Christians do not follow Moses' law, because they're not Jews. Nothing about the Old Testament is 'BS', the rules are just no longer followed because of Christ's sacrifice.

So why include the OT if none of the rules put forth in it are followed? And if what you say is true, what does this mean?

“It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.” (Luke 16:17)

Another quick question since we're on the subject, Leviticus lists a whole bunch of incestuous relationships that are to be avoided. Since there is no NT reference, are these things okay now?

6 “None of you shall approach any one of his close relatives to uncover nakedness. I am the Lord. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, which is the nakedness of your mother; she is your mother, you shall not uncover her nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife; it is your father’s nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your sister, your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether brought up in the family or in another home. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter-in-law; she is your son’s wife, you shall not uncover her nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother’s wife; it is your brother’s nakedness. rival wife to her sister, uncovering her nakedness while her sister is still alive.

Speaking of reading and comprehension Pumpkin Row, you never answered my bible questions...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The old Testament was included because it's part of the Bible's history, and also because it contained the laws for the Jews, and rules for hygiene. I've been getting a lot of notifications, I probably missed this post within them because you were on there multiple times, and I thought it was a previous post.

He was telling them to continue following the Jewish law, because that was the civilization that they lived in. In broader definition, he was telling people to follow the laws of their people, much like we follow American laws.

So follow the law but don't follow the law?!? Come on, try again.

You also didn't answer the second part...these restrictions are not in the NT...does that mean there are no longer biblical restrictions on them?


6 “None of you shall approach any one of his close relatives to uncover nakedness. I am the Lord. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, which is the nakedness of your mother; she is your mother, you shall not uncover her nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife; it is your father’s nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your sister, your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether brought up in the family or in another home. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter-in-law; she is your son’s wife, you shall not uncover her nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother’s wife; it is your brother’s nakedness. rival wife to her sister, uncovering her nakedness while her sister is still alive.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's not even close to what I said. I said Jesus is likely telling Christians to follow the laws of your civilization. Christians are not currently in a Jewish civilization that adheres to the laws the pharisees set MANY years ago. What God tells Christians to do in the New Testament are the laws for Christians.

Now you are reciting childish nonsense.

Jesus was doing no such thing.

 

[JakeStarkey]

PumpkinRow, you are like a young soldier in a class of mine who completely misread the text we were reading.

He wanted to say he was "coming at it in a different way."

No, he was wrong, and could not admit it.