Christian teen jailed for insulting Islam

[Fortigurn]

You mean like Thomas Jefferson, the monist? (he thought the trinity was BS...look see: http://www.brunswickcounty.com/Thomas_Jefferson_and_the_Doctrine_of_the_Trinity-a-1150.html )

Or Benjamin Franklin the deist?

The personal religious convictions of the majority of the founding fathers, those who wrote the constitution and the bill of rights, were VERY far from the Christianity of their day.

No, I am not talking about the Founding Fathers, who wrote the celebrated 'Declaration of Rights of Privileged White Males of the Age of Majority, But Not Women and Non-Humans Such as Negros'. But yes, I could also use the Founding Fathers (including such men as Thomas Paine), as an example of 'profoundly religious people' who helped establish rights such as religious liberty, freedom of and from religion, and separation of church and state; you're aware, surely, that Deists and Theists are actually religious? Did you think they were atheists?

So again...these wonderful freedoms and advances in society run CONTRARY to Christianity. The enlightenment put a muzzle on the vicious beast of Christian intolerance. These wonderful freedoms go against the very grain of the Christian religion (thank god for heretics!)

It seems your knowledge of both history and Christianity is lacking. You would find Berlinerblau's work 'The Secular Bible' instructive.

OK, lets look (at just a few) examples of how Christianity does NOT support individual freedom.

I don't see any evidence there that Christianity does not support individual freedom.

Just look at the MANY verses condemning the Jews (not just the Jews in the days of Jesus, but the Jews forever and ever) for killing Jesus. (do I need to quote them? theyre easy to find). That is NOT personal responsibility as you said, as the descendants of those that crucified Jesus did nothing, only those that lived in Jesus' day.

Yes I think you will need to find those 'MANY' verses condemning not only the Jews in the days of Jesus, but 'the Jews forever and ever' for killing Jesus. List your best 30.

[finley]

You actually convoluted two points into 1 (I made them different colors above). Lets look at each.

Of course I did. If one does not have individual freedom to act, then one cannot be held responsible for one's actions (there are plenty of religions that use this as an excuse for bad behaviour).

Matthew: Those who bear bad fruit will be cut down and burned "with unquenchable fire." 3:10, 12

What does that prove? People in those days were keen on celestial fire and brimstone. Jesus was offering people simple a choice: to spend a life doing wrong, or to attempt something better. He didn't say you would be prevented from choosing the former. However, the whole point of any personal choice is that you accept the consequences of your actions. In this case, he was pointing out that he wasn't going to put up with any crap - at least not in the putative afterlife. He didn't mention anything about instant (here on earth) retribution.

Jesus tells his disciples to keep away from the Gentiles and Samaritans, and go only to the Israelites. 10:5-6 (clearly the Christians changed this when they needed gentile converts)

Because, at that time, there was an ongoing low-level conflict between Jews and their neighbours (plus ca change, eh?). That particular passage, in context, simply tells the disciples to focus on Jews first. It was a purely practical instruction: the Jews would (probably) have been more receptive, and there would be (slightly) less chance of a lynching. He wasn't implying the Gentiles were untouchables. That was a Jewish idea that he (himself, not future Christians) actually tried to demolish, but I think he knew he wasn't going to get far with that during his lifetime.

AND THE BEST!!!!!!: "He that is not with me is against me." 12:30 (REAL TOLERANT EH?) also in Luke 11:23

Again, I don't see what that has to do with tolerance. He was preaching that he was the one and only way to salvation. One can either accept that, or not accept it. Logically, there are no other choices. That's all that's implied by that sentence.

Any city that doesn't "receive" the followers of Jesus will be destroyed in a manner even more savage than that of Sodom and Gomorrah. 6:11 (also Matthew 10:14-15 in case you want another reference)

No, that isn't what was said. " It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city" (KJV). Again, nothing about instant destruction. They had a choice to reject the message, but in this case, rejection is mutual.

Jesus says that those that believe and are baptized will be saved, while those who don't will be damned. 16:16

So what's the problem? Why would he be interested in saving those who didn't believe? It rather defeats the object, doesn't it? Presumably, if they didn't believe, they wouldn't want to be saved anyway, since being saved involves spending eternity in the company of God - not a desirable outcome if you don't like what he has to say.

In the parable of the talents, Jesus says that God takes what is not rightly his, and reaps what he didn't sow. The parable ends with the words: "bring them [those who preferred not to be ruled by him] hither, and slay them before me." 19:22-27

Oh FFS. They were violent times, dominated by feudal rulers. Life was cheap. The whole point of those parables was to explain things in everyday language. They probably still make sense to a Somali, but they don't make much sense to us. I don't get any impression that the feudal warlord in that parable was supposed to represent God. Frankly, I don't understand that particular parable, but it seems to be saying "don't just sit on your ass and expect good stuff to happen - you need to make it happen".

None of the above has anything to do with personal freedom. Jesus spent very little time saying "thou shalt not", and tried to sweep away some of the fossilized Jewish laws that did. He did spend a lot of time telling people to use their intellect and to develop a conscience, both of which are important features of any free society.

Just look at the MANY verses condemning the Jews (not just the Jews in the days of Jesus, but the Jews forever and ever) for killing Jesus. (do I need to quote them? theyre easy to find). That is NOT personal responsibility as you said, as the descendants of those that crucified Jesus did nothing, only those that lived in Jesus' day.

They were condemned not for killing him, but for refusing to accept that it was wrong. Jews are no less eligible as Christians than anyone else - in fact, as you pointed out above, they were Jesus's primary focus. Besides, his crucifixion was the whole point of him being here, and it had to happen at the hands of the Jews. The crucial part was that he was prepared to forgive them for doing so; but forgiveness always has to be asked for.

Oh geez golly, them modern, left wing Christian apologists who want to revision their religion in line with contemporary, modern, progressive values sure do like to say that. But just read the New Testament (I just provided a tiny amount of intolerant verses). Those who think Christianity promotes tolerance, acceptance, Individual freedom and personal responsibility need to go read their "good" book.

The verses you quoted are intolerant of the Hitlers, Gadafis, and Mugabes of this world. They are intolerant of people who make it their life's work to cause misery and destruction; those who degrade humans to the level of animals and refuse to allow them to aspire to something better. "Tolerance" does not imply unconditional acceptance of any and all behaviour. That's just cultural relativism. It surely goes without saying that any religion will accept some behaviour as "good" and others as "bad".

The unusual difference, in the case of Christianity, is that the individual is expected to develop his own moral compass, rather than just adhere to a bunch of rules. The latter method, I believe, is what theologians call "salvation by works", and is the basic theme of Islam as well as many other religions.

[sulavaca]

The transformation of Christianity from a tool of political control (back) into an actual religion had nothing to do with scientific progress.

I must have missed the bit in the history books where religion went from making no sense at all to actually making sense. Or is that not what we're talking about here?

Well, at least heaven is one place you can travel to without a passport, unless you have other logical alternatives like maybe China.

I'm completely lost as to what you're talking about here, but I think you may be right. ApparentlyHeavenonly requires proof of age . Barring that Heaven I can't seem to readily find any evidence of any other, but for some superstitious old folk tales.

[bob]

The whole sadistic enterprise of Christianity is formulated on the notion that if you can't accept Christ, and as a consequence of having accepted him change the way you think and even feel you will be sent to hell. Talking about freedom in this context is ridiculous.

Why? If you don't believe in a God, then presumably there's no hell to go to either.

People don't have freedom over what they believe. You could test that by asking yourself to start believing, for example, that the way forward for the world, environmentally, is to increase subsidies to the oil industries. Tax alternatives to pay for the subsidy. Good luck.

Like every other embedded agenda out there what Christianity does is try to create a situation in which it is impossible to not believe in it. They all fail, at least partially, because there are always competing agendas. Christianity is particularly rank about it though because it actively sets about brain washing the young. Many many people have been left struggling with the fact that they can't reconcile their disgust at the insnity of the religion with the fact that on a deep emotional level they think it is true.

Which brings us to the infintesimal possibility that it actually is true that if you hear "the word," and are not so constituted that you can sincerely believe it, you go to hell. Just in terms of the religion's internal logic, the system is blatantly evil. I am assuming here, as you do not, that a plain reading of the actual text claiming to record what he actually said on the issue is anything to go by. In the modern, liberal, moderate, western churches they seem to have made the fortunate decision to downplay the centrality of hell to the Christian belief system. I have actually been reading the text lately and haven't a clue how they came to the conclusion that that makes any sense when you look at what he actually said though. There were problems with the translation of that word "hell" that some churches are trying to hide behind (and they can, partially) but that leaves the issue of why god allowed his inspired language to be translated that way, ie, as eternal damnation, torment and all the rest of it.

[Confuzius]

Jesus tells his disciples to keep away from the Gentiles and Samaritans, and go only to the Israelites. 10:5-6 (clearly the Christians changed this when they needed gentile converts)

Because, at that time, there was an ongoing low-level conflict between Jews and their neighbours (plus ca change, eh?). That particular passage, in context, simply tells the disciples to focus on Jews first. It was a purely practical instruction: the Jews would (probably) have been more receptive, and there would be (slightly) less chance of a lynching. He wasn't implying the Gentiles were untouchables. That was a Jewish idea that he (himself, not future Christians) actually tried to demolish, but I think he knew he wasn't going to get far with that during his lifetime.

That's ifya don't look at the verse Jesus refuses to heal the Canaanite woman's possessed daughter, saying "it is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to the dogs." (Matthew 15:22-26) So yes, at first Jesus thought gentiles were dogs.

AND THE BEST!!!!!!: "He that is not with me is against me." 12:30 (REAL TOLERANT EH?) also in Luke 11:23

Again, I don't see what that has to do with tolerance. He was preaching that he was the one and only way to salvation. One can either accept that, or not accept it. Logically, there are no other choices. That's all that's implied by that sentence.

AGAINST me=my enemy. He didn't say "you aren't super awesome unless you like me" but you are actually against me. This makes it so that every non-Christian is the enemy of god.

Jesus says that those that believe and are baptized will be saved, while those who don't will be damned. 16:16

So what's the problem? Why would he be interested in saving those who didn't believe? It rather defeats the object, doesn't it? Presumably, if they didn't believe, they wouldn't want to be saved anyway, since being saved involves spending eternity in the company of God - not a desirable outcome if you don't like what he has to say.

According to this, whatever you believe (or do not) if you are not baptized you get to spend eternity in hell.

In the parable of the talents, Jesus says that God takes what is not rightly his, and reaps what he didn't sow. The parable ends with the words: "bring them [those who preferred not to be ruled by him] hither, and slay them before me." 19:22-27

Oh FFS. They were violent times, dominated by feudal rulers. Life was cheap. The whole point of those parables was to explain things in everyday language. They probably still make sense to a Somali, but they don't make much sense to us. I don't get any impression that the feudal warlord in that parable was supposed to represent God. Frankly, I don't understand that particular parable, but it seems to be saying "don't just sit on your ass and expect good stuff to happen - you need to make it happen".

That's your interpretation. Others, much more knowledgable and versed in the New Testament than either you or I have read this as a sort of call to arms.

None of the above has anything to do with personal freedom. Jesus spent very little time saying "thou shalt not", and tried to sweep away some of the fossilized Jewish laws that did. He did spend a lot of time telling people to use their intellect and to develop a conscience, both of which are important features of any free society.

Where exactly did he tell people to use their intellect and develop a conscience? Got a quote or two?????

You are only partially right here. He didn't do a lot of "thou shalt nots", but was very versed in Pharasaic Jewish hermeneutic interpretation and employed it quite often. (You see in the NT him ARGUING with the Pharasiees...yet not really dissing them. Its the Sadducees (who took the bible literally rather than interpret it) that he dissed all the time. But what you are wrong about, is him sweeping away the Jewish laws. That was Paul. Jesus even said he did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it. If he actually lived, he was probably a very observant Jew who required his disciples to be observant as well.

Just look at the MANY verses condemning the Jews (not just the Jews in the days of Jesus, but the Jews forever and ever) for killing Jesus. (do I need to quote them? theyre easy to find). That is NOT personal responsibility as you said, as the descendants of those that crucified Jesus did nothing, only those that lived in Jesus' day.

They were condemned not for killing him, but for refusing to accept that it was wrong. Jews are no less eligible as Christians than anyone else - in fact, as you pointed out above, they were Jesus's primary focus. Besides, his crucifixion was the whole point of him being here, and it had to happen at the hands of the Jews. The crucial part was that he was prepared to forgive them for doing so; but forgiveness always has to be asked for.

Now you are projecting LATER developments in Christian theology (the blood, lamb, perfect sacrifice, etc) onto the story...which is what Christians do. At the time of the crucifixion..his disciples were not jumping for joy because their sins were washed away. They were devastated.

Oh geez golly, them modern, left wing Christian apologists who want to revision their religion in line with contemporary, modern, progressive values sure do like to say that. But just read the New Testament (I just provided a tiny amount of intolerant verses). Those who think Christianity promotes tolerance, acceptance, Individual freedom and personal responsibility need to go read their "good" book.

The verses you quoted are intolerant of the Hitlers, Gadafis, and Mugabes of this world. They are intolerant of people who make it their life's work to cause misery and destruction; those who degrade humans to the level of animals and refuse to allow them to aspire to something better. "Tolerance" does not imply unconditional acceptance of any and all behaviour. That's just cultural relativism. It surely goes without saying that any religion will accept some behaviour as "good" and others as "bad".

They are also intolerant of the charity collecting rabbis, the meditating Buddhists and even the atheists. If you are not WITH Jesus, you are an enemy of God.

The unusual difference, in the case of Christianity, is that the individual is expected to develop his own moral compass, rather than just adhere to a bunch of rules. The latter method, I believe, is what theologians call "salvation by works", and is the basic theme of Islam as well as many other religions.

Now you are TOTALLY relying on a Protestant view of Christianity (which is relatively new) do not forget the Catholics! Martin Luther totally hated the notion of "salvation by works"...a tenant which is central to Catholicism. Rather, he insisted, one is saved by "faith alone". So, according to your above statement, either Catholics are not Christians (as they believe in salvation by works) or maybe you just forgot about that being a central breaking point between Catholicism an Protestantism.

[Confuzius]

Yes I think you will need to find those 'MANY' verses condemning not only the Jews in the days of Jesus, but 'the Jews forever and ever' for killing Jesus. List your best 30.

You don't need thirty when you have "So when Pilate saw that he could do nothing, but rather that a riot was beginning, he took some water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, 'I am innocent of this man's blood; see to it yourselves.' Then the people as a whole answered, 'His blood be on us and on our children!'" (Matthew 27:24-25)

For more information about this verse, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_curse

But others:

"And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him" (John 5:16). The fourth gospel also says of Jesus: "He would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him" (7:1) and adds darkly that "no man spake openly of him for fear of the Jews" (7:13).

Jews are descendants of Satan:
"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it."
—John 8:44

When Jesus is tried before Pilate, John writes: "The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die" (19:7), and adds: "Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend" (19:12).

"For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews: who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men: forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost."
—1 Thessalonians 2:14-16

Jews are devil worshippers:
"Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee."
—Revelation 3:9

And now some later, "holy" saints:
St. Gregory: “ Jews are slayers of the Lord, murderers of the prophets, enemies of God, haters of God, adversaries of grace, enemies of their fathers’ faith, advocates of the devil, brood of vipers, slanderers, scoffers, men of darkened minds, leaven of the Pharisees, congregation of demons, sinners, wicked men, stoners and haters of goodness.”

St. John Chrysostom: “I know that many people hold a high regard for the Jews and consider their way of life worthy of respect at the present time... This is why I am hurrying to pull up this fatal notion by the roots ... A place where a whore stands on display is a whorehouse. What is more, the synagogue is not only a whorehouse and a theater; it is also a den of thieves and a haunt of wild animals ... not the cave of a wild animal merely, but of an unclean wild animal ... When animals are unfit for work, they are marked for slaughter, and this is the very thing which the Jews have experienced. By making themselves unfit for work, they have become ready for slaughter. This is why Christ said: “ask for my enemies, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them and slay them before me’ (Luke 19.27).”

Do I really need to continue?

Christian is no less barbarous, intolerant or violent than Islam. Thank god the rulers of Christian countries separated Church and state (since the former is barbaric, inherently, because Christianity is inherently violent).

[Fortigurn]

Yes I think you will need to find those 'MANY' verses condemning not only the Jews in the days of Jesus, but 'the Jews forever and ever' for killing Jesus. List your best 30.

You don't need thirty when you have "So when Pilate saw that he could do nothing, but rather that a riot was beginning, he took some water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, 'I am innocent of this man's blood; see to it yourselves.' Then the people as a whole answered, 'His blood be on us and on our children!'" (Matthew 27:24-25)

Ok, so where are all the verses which condemn not only the Jews in the days of Jesus, but 'the Jews forever and ever' for killing Jesus?

For more information about this verse, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_curse

You mean see the article which has been tagged 'This article does not cite any references or sources'? Oh, ok. Why?

But others:

Wow, none of them condemn not only the Jews in the days of Jesus, but 'the Jews forever and ever' for killing Jesus. How unsurprising. This attempt of yours was a particularly embarrassing clanger:

Jews are devil worshippers:
"Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee."
—Revelation 3:9

This refers explicitly to people who pretend they are Jews but are not Jews. And it doesn't refer to anyone as a devil worshipper, let alone Jews. You're not very good at this.

And now some later, "holy" saints:

Irrelevant; you've stepped outside the Bible. It's clear you couldn't find the evidence for your initial claim.

[Confuzius]

Yes I think you will need to find those 'MANY' verses condemning not only the Jews in the days of Jesus, but 'the Jews forever and ever' for killing Jesus. List your best 30.

You don't need thirty when you have "So when Pilate saw that he could do nothing, but rather that a riot was beginning, he took some water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, 'I am innocent of this man's blood; see to it yourselves.' Then the people as a whole answered, 'His blood be on us and on our children!'" (Matthew 27:24-25)

Ok, so where are all the verses which condemn not only the Jews in the days of Jesus, but 'the Jews forever and ever' for killing Jesus?

This is especially embarrassing for you as I even underlined that part. You really suck at this.

[sulavaca]

No Christian is determined to create hell on earth.

"President Bush said to all of us: 'I am driven with a mission from God'. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did." Mr Bush went on: "And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, 'Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East'. And, by God, I'm gonna do it."

[bigduke6]

Lets not forget about the Christian teen who was jailed. This is a result of Islam and Islam only.

It has nothing to do with Christians, Jews, Mormons, Hari Krishnas, Hindu's etc etc.

He seems to have been forgotten. Possibly Atheism and Religion can be discussed on a separate thread? I am sure the late Peter Hitchens would agree.