Do me this dignity, a final word

[MrFlibble]

I just wanted to show that the teachings of Christ can be also (mis-)interpreted in such a way as to justify things that were not originally intended, violence and killing being the most outrageous instances. In fact, probably every known (monotheistic) religion disapproves of violence and any other deeds that are considered evil, but history knows a lot of examples when the original intentions were twisted to fit someone's own goals. It is not the religions to be blamed, but those people who use them as tools for controlling large numbers of people. Wherever is power, violence is also nearby, so no wonder religious control may result in something utterly terrible.

Yes - that's why I can't see how Islam and the western worlds idea of freedom and democracy can go hand in hand.

Religion and democracy are most probably incompatible - at least, in certain parts. Democratic society proclaims freedom of conscience, doesn't it? It is implied that all religions are equal, and man is free to choose one most suitable for his unique personality. However, almost every religion claims to hold the ultimate truth - not some truth, but the truth. The tendency to cross-confessional cooperation has emerged only recently, and even today we still experience the echoes of bitter rivalry between different religions in the past. So the equality of religions is something possible for an outside viewer, while it is most probably not acceptable for at least the most conservative adepts of any religion.

[SpiceGuid]

Welcome back emprworm :)

No one told me I had a 24 hour ban, and I rightly assumed it was permanent.  And to this moment, I do not believe it was originally 24 hours.  Whoever went out of their way to type "Blatant Islamophobia" could have stated it was 24 hours, but they did not, nor was I warned or informed at all...i was simply BANNED.  So on what basis should I assume it was 24 hours?  If you logged in and saw the above ban, would you assume it was 24 hours?  Because I rightly believed I had a permanent ban, I opened a 2nd account and broke the rules because, frankly, I was stunned that I would just be arbitrarily banned like that without warning or notice.  I also emailed 2 of the mods about the ban, including Gob.  Only then was my ban "changed" to 24 hours (that is my belief)

Well i had been banned, the banner message was similarly terse.

Reason was link to sexual-oriented content.

But no delay given and nobody to ask about it.

1 day ? more.

so 1 week ? more.

1 year seemed a bit harsh too me, that speculation revealed to be correct: 1 month ban.

Seems to me there is a somewhat Bene Gesserit discipline, not knowing the delay is part of the sanction but it remains an untold rule until you break the limit, it's said you can be banned and what are banning conditions, but nothing is said about the sanction execution. 

So my guess is you were banned 24 hour but were not informed about it.

[nemafakei]

Hey, that one wasn't me (Damnit!). Welcome back - but stay off the unsuitable links. As I've said, in future, we need to include the ban length in the 'reason for ban'.

[erjin999]

And while we are at "putting right what once went wrong" kind of mood, how about telling us who has decided to wipe a post and perhaps the reason...just a vague reason like inappropriate materials, swearing & abuse, lies...that kind of thing. It would be a lot easier to accept that way.  :P

[Andrew]

Immigrants youths want to turn nightly rioting during the Islamic holy month of ramadan into an annual tradition

Yep they are peaceful as well. OMG riot is the solution to everything! Jihad!

My tuition increased this fall... RIOT! LALALA!

And for the anti-abortion nuts:

Christian terrorist attempts car-bombing in Iowa (same guy as before, but with a bit more info)

[TMA_1]

clearly and undoubtedly justifies "righteous killing", such as killing an enemy when defending your Motherland (i.e. in a war). This was an answer to my argument that there aren't any places in the New Testament that justify or promote violence.

there are no verses in the new testament that condone violence. The only few verses, such as that the government does not hold it's sword in vain, deal with respecting the proper authorities, and showing that christians should really try to stay out of government dealings.

Christianity itself from the scriptures teaches that all men are free to make their choices on faith. Nowhere does it say that christ should be preached by the sword, or by any other coercion.

Please point me to the verses that teach this, because you did not mention the verses you spoke of.

Christianity should not involve itself in any kind of human power structure. This is why christianity has been tainted, because it was never meant to be apart of any sort of human establishment.

The difference between christianity and islam is night and day. Islam takes a view that follows more of an old testament approach to a theocracy. That governments should be run by those who are faithful, and that the laws of men and the laws of God should be inseperable. Christ taught a new covenant that seperated itself from government, following a higher authority of the heavenly kingdom. Islam teaches that all people who are not of the book need to be converted, and those who do follow christianity, Judaism, Zeroastrianism, and one other specific faith that I currently cannot remember, have to pay tribute to the government of the faithful, as conquered servants.

This goes DIRECTLY against the teachings of christ. Those people who misinterprited the scriptures  obviously had no grounds for it other than mixing covenants.

[Acriku]

Then again, Jesus came to fulfill the Old Testament. He doesn't go against whatever is said there, he actually fully condones it.

[TMA_1]

That is exactly it, he fulfilled the old testament laws. But christ came to preach the heavenly kingdom. The laws of the jews do not equate with the new testament believers because to follow christ is to follow the heavenly kingdom. Now the key commandments will naturally be followed by faithful believers because to be faithful to christ is to not abrogate the teachings of christ which go in sync with the commandments.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Christ fulfilled the old testament but he also brought greater laws.  He basically is expounding upon the old testament. 

He says:  "You have heard it said an Eye for an Eye and a tooth for a tooth..... but i tell you now to love thy enemy."

Meaning = Yes it was ok to seek proportional retribution, however it is better if you show your offender grace and mercy as i have forgiven and shown mercy to you.

He also says:  "You have heard it said do unto others as you would have them do unto you.... now i tell you do unto others as *I* have done unto you"

Meaning = Treating others well because you want to be treated well was acceptable, however it is better if everyone loves each other with sacrificial love.  Treat everyone as if they were the most important invidivdual in your life.

These are powerful examples of how Christ fulfilled the old testament but has stated that man is to be held to a higher standard since he himself has given divine grace and mercy.

It does seem as if we are children and God is our father... and he is slowly revealing morality to us piece by piece... upping the ante. I guess until we are perfect.  I suppose the last piece of the puzzle is when Christ returns, Maybe he will have something more to show us, 1000 year reign is alot more time than his 33 year life.  And people during that time will see what a true utopia is like as all of his New Testament teachings will be followed to the letter (since scripture states that people will be unable to rebel during his reign...they'll have their chance afterwards).

Guns

[Acriku]

So Christians are held to a higher standard from God than Jews... yeah ok. Anyway, there are verses for and against the law of the old testament. Pick which one your argument supports and post it. The wonders of the Bible  ::)

[TMA_1]

no, neither higher nor lower, but different. This is what is said in the new testament. Different covenants. We christians dont live under a nation controlled by God, we therefore dont need specific laws to run and govern the affairs of a people, since the people are no longer held under a theocracy. It isnt worse or better though, and I dont think anyone on this thread said so.

Many christians from the very beginning, to the present have held that somehow our covenant is a superior one, but that is just favoratism, and wrong. Everyone does this though. If you live in a nation that is good and just, you will fail to see these same virtues in other nations, and that kind of jingoism is totally wrong. It comes from thinking inside the box, and everyone, even christians suffer from this human flaw.

[GUNWOUNDS]

TMA is right.... things dont have to be better or worse... they can be different.  In addition, just because a few point of the New Testament covenant may require Christians to do things a little more revolutionary and take more effort (such as love thy enemy instead of eye for eye) it doesnt mean the Old Testament covenant is somehow inferior as it also had things that required more effort (such as making animal sacrifices instead of praying for forgiveness).  It just means the New Covenenat is different with some more revolutionary concepts, since it is well... New and based off of an unprecedented phenomenal occurence.  TMA is probably correct in that thinking one's own covenant is superior is favoritism, however , favoritism or not, I believe that the New Testament covenenat is the most apporpriate for our modern times (from what TMA has said i think he would agree with me), and I do believe that my two examples shown above that demonstrate greater love and forgiveness do show that the New Covenant has a higher expectation from God for us to display these qualities.  Whether that constitutes the christian covenant as being superior to the Jewish convenant is up to someone to decide.

But technically, The Old testament covenant doesnt apply for modern jews, so its really a moot question.  There arent two covenants competing with each other.  There is only ONE covenant adn that is the New Testament Covenant which completes the Old and is the current covenant.

Its as if we only dealt with Calculus problems.  Now Calculus doesnt cancel out Algebra... Calculus fulfills all aspects of algebra and then brings its own mechanics to the table.  We are living in a time where we need Calculus not Algebra.  Although you have to understand Algebra first in order to understand where calculus is coming from.

Guns

[Acriku]

I can see you're coming at this from purely a Christian point-of-view. I'm trying to see it from the Jew's perspective as well. To the Jews, there is no New Testament. There is no Old Testament. There is only the Torah, or Tanakh. To them, that was all God gave them for law. Why would God give his chosen people a huge set of Laws, and then much later (3000 years later!) give his chosen people messiah that spoke a different way of living, a different set of laws? But you see, to keep Jews within Christianity, Matthew (or whoever wrote for him) wrote that Jesus did not come to abolish those laws (rather fulfill them). Which makes it even more confusing, since the two gods are quite different (OT vs NT). When it comes to a perfect creator giving his chosen people laws, giving a second draft of it with many fundamental changes in it so many years later is not heard of. It makes no sense.

[TMA_1]

I just spoke on the concept of fulfilling the laws, which is what christ did. He fulfilled the old testament promises by dying on the cross and raising from the dead. In doing this he saved us from the sins that the laws spoke of. Now we dont live under the judgement of the law, but through salvation in christ, fulfilling the law as a result.

The "two gods" arent different at all. God only communicates directly a few times in the new testament, the rest of the time Christ, who is God and man, is who speaks to mankind, As well as the apostles who are filled with the spirit. The reason why God seems different is the fact that the covenants are totally different, and also in the new testament we dont have the prophets, speaking as mouthpieces for God, commanding the theocratic nation of Israel. It seems different because the situations are totally different.

[Acriku]

So Jesus is God except when he is talking, in which case he is a man in a different situation? I'm sorry, but you are really using things when they suit your needs. Just like using the OT when it suits your needs (using it for the prophetic fulfilments, the ten commandments, but nothing else). I guess that's the art of debate, as opposed to intellectual discussion.

[TMA_1]

no, we dont follow all 613 commandments because we are not collected together as a theocratic nation like the jewish people were, so that is silly. To you it seems as if christians use things to serve their needs, to us it is a synergy of standards made by God. Jesus is God and man, he is one of the triune nature of God. When God speaks to some of the apostles in the new testament (like on the mount of transfiguration) he speaks to the apostles there as he did in times before the christ, because he had not yet died and arose from the dead, therefore it is still considered old testament in it's timeframe. When you hear God say "this is my son in whom I am well pleased" you are hearing the Father, aother part of the Triune nature of God. Most of the time though we hear God through the son, who is Christ. God is one in essence, but is three in person, and this is why we see such a difference between old testament and new testament concepts. Also, you dont have to resort to hitting below the belt wiht your last statement, I dont believe I said anything like that to you.

It is a difference of perspective. I think this will lead to another dead end of debates on perception. I will stop before it just gets silly.

[GUNWOUNDS]

I can see you're coming at this from purely a Christian point-of-view. I'm trying to see it from the Jew's perspective as well. To the Jews, there is no New Testament. There is no Old Testament. There is only the Torah, or Tanakh. To them, that was all God gave them for law. Why would God give his chosen people a huge set of Laws, and then much later (3000 years later!) give his chosen people messiah that spoke a different way of living, a different set of laws? But you see, to keep Jews within Christianity, Matthew (or whoever wrote for him) wrote that Jesus did not come to abolish those laws (rather fulfill them). Which makes it even more confusing, since the two gods are quite different (OT vs NT). When it comes to a perfect creator giving his chosen people laws, giving a second draft of it with many fundamental changes in it so many years later is not heard of. It makes no sense.

Come on Acriku.... lets put on our thinking caps.  It makes perfect sense why God would "issue a second set".

Listen carefully.  MAN CANNOT FULFILL THE PERFECT LAW.  All it takes is one infraction and you're screwed, unless you have grace and salvation.... salvation and grace are in the new testament however.  From the time you were born..... how many times have you lied?  How many times have you stolen?  How many times have you given false witness?  How many times have you coveted what someone else had?  Too many times to count.  Yea the New Testament couldnt come soon enough.

You can never fulfil the perfect moral law, you need grace.   The jews in the Old Testament were basically screwed... forced to live under a theocratic government where they constantly broke laws and had to sacrifice animals whose blood only temporarily paid the sin debt until the next day when they commited the sins all over again.

God did give a perfect set of laws... but the problem is that man is imperfect and kept screwing it up.  God wants to reunite with us back to the way it was when he first made Adam.  That obviously wasnt gonna happen in the Old Testament with the jews with the old covenant.  There was nothing wrong with the laws, they were set and mankind had to follow them.  However God had to execute the "rest" of His plan due to only a handful of men barely even coming close to keeping the laws. 

God had to complete His plan that would complete the reuniting of Him and his creation, He had to make a workaround, and thats where we come in with salvation and grace.  thats why God seems so different... because we are seeing more of a side of Him that we havent seen before.  He is showing us alot of his personal side in the new testament and even made it incarnate.  Its the biggest gesture He can make.

And what does 3000 years have to do with anything?  To an Eternal God 3000 years is nothing, add that to the fact that throughout the Bible God's Will is unravelled over VERY long periods of time, it makes complete sense.  Imperfect man had to suffer under perfect law for 3000 years and you complain when He decides to take the Razor's edge off the law and give us Grace, Mercy & Salvation?  YOu say from a jew's perspective that it doesnt make sense to get grace?  Yea well it doesnt make much sense when your credit card company gives you a 15 day grace period for you payment to reach them, yet they do it anyway.  Why?  Because its their perogative.  If a credit card company has a perogative to offer grace.....then I'm sure its well within the bounds of reality for an Almighty God to have the perogative to offer His creation grace.

[alchemi2]

"I guess that's the art of debate, as opposed to intellectual discussion."

I take that to mean in a debate you generally believe the premise your putting forward or have at least gather evidence to support the stance you are taking, whereas in an intellectual discussion, you have no true view point but are purely raising issues as speculation on any given premise.

What do you actually mean by that statement?

Or was it just a provocative statement meant too belittle those whose point of view differed from your own?

[Acriku]

"I guess that's the art of debate, as opposed to intellectual discussion."

I take that to mean in a debate you generally believe the premise your putting forward or have at least gather evidence to support the stance you are taking, whereas in an intellectual discussion, you have no true view point but are purely raising issues as speculation on any given premise.

What do you actually mean by that statement?

Or was it just a provocative statement meant too belittle those whose point of view differed from your own?

Why do you always assume I'm trying to belittle someone? The statement meant that in a debate you don't have to enhance discussion, all you have to do is win the argument. Tactics such as using something when it is useful and discarding it when it is not is the art of debate, not progress in discussion.

Guns, you say man cannot fulfill the perfect law. Well of course. It is up to the Jew to follow God's Law to the best of his ability. Also, you're not screwed as much as Christians believe, since there isn't really a Hell for Jews as described in the NT. If you don't intentionally break the commandments, you will receive immortality, but if you do, then you simply won't. As far as I've read into Judaism, that's it.

You're whole scenario of God making laws, seeing man screw things up, then make a workaround with Jesus is not something you would expect an omniscient god to do. Why did he screw all of those generations of Jews? It makes no sense. God fucked up? What?

3000 years do mean something greatly... to us. That's many generations of Jews who apparently got a rushed first draft of the Bible.

Also, from what I've read, the "perfect law" that the Jews were given under the Tanakh were not strict laws to follow without flexibility. If you did not intentionally break God's commandments, then you are fine.

[alchemi2]

"Why do you always assume I'm trying to belittle someone?"

because quite often that's the way it reads  ::) or maybe it's just you're style of writing  ;)

[TMA_1]

since there isn't really a Hell for Jews as described in the NT

This is a large misconception, and depends on which practicing jew you talk to. It isnt good to lump all jewish believers together into one specific spiritual point of view. There are a lot of practicing jewish folk who believe in a hell similar to the christian conception. In fact many christians believe in the same cosmology concerning hades and abraham's bosom that some jewish people to this day still believe.

also, I didnt discard anything, I simply explained my point of view, maybe not in the best way possible, but I am terrible at debate, and dont know the art of debate by any means. I did not heighten or amplify anything. I really was trying to explain that you have your own opinion on christian beliefs, and often you as well sometimes generalize christians and marginalize their beliefs. I do not mean this or at least I do not intend for this last statement to be offensive. It just seems that this is the case. I have put a lot of thoughts into what my beliefs are, and if I could speak wiht you in person, I could do much better in explaining to you how my beliefs translate into my whole world view.

[GUNWOUNDS]

problem is Acriku we ALL.. including jews, have broken God's commandments intentionally.  No man can say he has never lied, stolen, whatever,  etc intentionally.

Also i am not sure which jews you are talking about when you say they dont believe in a Hell.  I know some believe in Abraham's Bosom, some believe in a christian hell, some believe the soul is destroyed, etc,  etc, etc

But the hell issue is rather a red herring.  Losing immortality and not gaining acccess to God's presence is  hell anyway you look at it.  The point stands that man needs mercy and grace from God.

Did God mess up?  I think we've been round and round this before.  DO i have to repeat the same old arguements?

Well here goes for the bazillionth time.   No God did not mess up .... He didnt want robots running around, he wants people with free will who could love Him back freely, God isnt a rapist, he wants you to make a free choice. 

Oh wah wah how  can there  be free choice if there is a Hell?

Well the answer to that is that unfortunately we ultimately cannot have a happy existance without Him as He is the source of eternal life.  SO by rejecting Him you are condemning yourself to misery, however the fact that we are in this fleshy life and really dont even know if He exists helps to offset that problem.  We cant really say that He is pressuring us to love Him, because He isnt standing right next to you reminding you of Hell everyday.  You have to actively seek Him out with a genuine interest.  And if you want... you can ignore Him.  SO no God didnt mess up.... in fact this is probably one of the most brilliant Free Expression of Love Experiments in the universe.

Although from a skeptics viewpoint it would look cruel..... becuz... well that's a skeptics job.. to inverse everything.  The skeptic will ultimately be enraged that he cannot find immortality thru himself and despises the thought of a God lording over Him.  And any attempts to insult or criticize this God will be most enjoyable to the skeptic.

It reminds me of the glass is half empty or glass is half full.   You can view this entire situation as half empty or full.... either brilliantly constructed or cruelly confusing.  I choose to believe that an ALL MIGHTY GOD would be extremely "mature" and so this isnt some cruel sadistic game..... it only makes sense that this is the most realistic example of a creator creating His creation and having it prove itself in terms of quality, genuine love, and loyalty.

Why?  Because if you are an All powerful creator, you could create perfect beings in a perfect situation.  Thats called heaven and the angels.  Now what if God doesnt want to create more angels.  What if he wants to create a fleshy thing called man? And what if He wants to create a perfect society... but doesnt want it to be pre-programmed good.  What if He wants evolved, earned, good?   That makes it more "real" and have more "meaning"   Seriously think about it.  If you are God one of the most important things to you has to be "meaning".  I mean if you are an entity that can just speak a word and it all comes to be, then while creating things still may satisfy you, it is even most meaningful if that creation acts on its own, exercising it's abilities, even if it means rejecting you and going in the opposite direction.  Of course if you were really attached to this particular creation, due to it being a very personal creation (made in own image) then it would make sense for the creator to try to find ways to prevent "point of no return" type situations (like hell), which is where salvation and grace would come in.

I think stopping and analyzing the Creator/creation God/man relationship makes sense when you really think about... instead of just thinking of man as a "failure" of a perfect God and declaring a fallacy.  Man's failure may actually be one of the things that make us the most "real" of any creation with the most "meaning" which is evident if He truly became a man and took punishment for us.  The angels are probably more confused than we are about this whole situation, we truly are the most loved, most real, and most meaningful creation ever to come into existance.

Pardon the juxtaposed text... its late and i wrote this in a hurry.

Guns

[Acriku]

since there isn't really a Hell for Jews as described in the NT

This is a large misconception, and depends on which practicing jew you talk to. It isnt good to lump all jewish believers together into one specific spiritual point of view. There are a lot of practicing jewish folk who believe in a hell similar to the christian conception. In fact many christians believe in the same cosmology concerning hades and abraham's bosom that some jewish people to this day still believe.

also, I didnt discard anything, I simply explained my point of view, maybe not in the best way possible, but I am terrible at debate, and dont know the art of debate by any means. I did not heighten or amplify anything. I really was trying to explain that you have your own opinion on christian beliefs, and often you as well sometimes generalize christians and marginalize their beliefs. I do not mean this or at least I do not intend for this last statement to be offensive. It just seems that this is the case. I have put a lot of thoughts into what my beliefs are, and if I could speak wiht you in person, I could do much better in explaining to you how my beliefs translate into my whole world view.

You're right, I shouldn't have lumped every Jew into that category. The thing is, most traditionalist Jews do believe that. You have sects of Judaism that go real deep into the Kaballah, and you have sects that think it's crap. I remember someone's introduction to a lecture on mysticism as, "What you're going to hear is nonsense, but its Jewish nonsense, and anything Jewish is worthwhile to hear." or something like that. Anyway, you will find that most traditionalist Jews believe that getting  to heaven is found through an ethical life, a Jewish life preferred. They would also believe that there is no hell, but rather varying degrees of Heaven, depending on your life on Earth. In other words, an eternal hell as described in the NT is not something you would see much in Judaism.

problem is Acriku we ALL.. including jews, have broken God's commandments intentionally.  No man can say he has never lied, stolen, whatever,  etc intentionally.

Of course, but breaking them isn't binding. It isn't a fast-track ticket to Hell. I found out through the people at my old synagogue (Southwest Jewish Congregation, which is conservative) that God judges people appropriately to the sin they have done in their lives, but in no way is that eternal. Eternal punishment for what you do on Earth is in no way just, fair, or merciful.

But the hell issue is rather a red herring.  Losing immortality and not gaining acccess to God's presence is  hell anyway you look at it.  The point stands that man needs mercy and grace from God.

I mentioned it 'as described in the NT'. Meaning, the lake of fire, brimstone, lashing of teeth, are not what Jews would call hell.

Did God mess up?  I think we've been round and round this before.  DO i have to repeat the same old arguements?

Well here goes for the bazillionth time.  No God did not mess up .... He didnt want robots running around, he wants people with free will who could love Him back freely, God isnt a rapist, he wants you to make a free choice. 

The reason you have to bring it up many times is because I'm still not convinced of it. He didn't want robots running around, okay?... what does that have to do with making the Jewish law? He certainly gives us a choice, but unlike Christianity he doesn't put eternal punishment if you don't on the table as well. That is not free will. Free will is making a choice without outside pressure. Eternal punishment is enormous pressure when making the decision to be with God.

Oh wah wah how  can there  be free choice if there is a Hell?

Well the answer to that is that unfortunately we ultimately cannot have a happy existance without Him as He is the source of eternal life.  SO by rejecting Him you are condemning yourself to misery, however the fact that we are in this fleshy life and really dont even know if He exists helps to offset that problem.  We cant really say that He is pressuring us to love Him, because He isnt standing right next to you reminding you of Hell everyday.  You have to actively seek Him out with a genuine interest.  And if you want... you can ignore Him.  SO no God didnt mess up.... in fact this is probably one of the most brilliant Free Expression of Love Experiments in the universe.

I'm not condemning MYSELF. God is condemning ME. He is the one who pushes the button to let me fall into the fires of hell. If I came up to you with a knife to your throat and said, "You have free will. you can choose to give me your money, or not. If you don't, I'll slit your throat." It's the same reasoning, but eternal punishment is so much worse than getting a painful death.

Although from a skeptics viewpoint it would look cruel..... becuz... well that's a skeptics job.. to inverse everything.  The skeptic will ultimately be enraged that he cannot find immortality thru himself and despises the thought of a God lording over Him.  And any attempts to insult or criticize this God will be most enjoyable to the skeptic.

Yes, inverse EVERYTHING. We love it. We loved it when we inversed the idea that the universe revolved around US, we loved it when we inversed the idea that we were made in six days, the earth is 6000 years old, and fossils are the devil's way to trick us. We love inversing popular ideals that hold no grounds to reason and scientific methods. But to tell you the truth, I would love for God to be true and I would follow a very ethical life (not much unlike my own) so that I could be close to him. But you see, he has given me a brain that reasons out - "wait a minute, there simply is no reason to believe this. In fact, there're reasons NOT to believe it." A brain that thinks, that reasons, that questions, that yearns for truth. You have one, too.

It reminds me of the glass is half empty or glass is half full.  You can view this entire situation as half empty or full.... either brilliantly constructed or cruelly confusing.  I choose to believe that an ALL MIGHTY GOD would be extremely "mature" and so this isnt some cruel sadistic game..... it only makes sense that this is the most realistic example of a creator creating His creation and having it prove itself in terms of quality, genuine love, and loyalty.

What is almighty to us may be fundamental concepts to our creator. What we know must seem almighty to people a thousand years ago. It's a matter of perspective, you're right. An almighty god would seem to be mature, but that is not always the case. They say, technology so advanced looks like magic to us. An almighty god is an extreme example of that. The qualities you prescribe to the almighty god do not follow from a being that seems almighty to us.

[Andrew]

This seems to be the anti Islam thread ;)

Muslims angered 2012 Olympics in London occur during Ramadan

What won't they complain about?

I assume the olympics occur on Sundays yet you don't see Christians complaining that it is the day of rest.

And inflammatory pics for fun:

[erjin999]

I dont think any real muslims would give a damn about when the games are set.

As for your pictures, I was about to ask about the relenvance before I read your statement over them !  8)

And inflammatory pics for fun: