I am an Islamophobe. If you are not, you might not be a moral person.

[Harbal]

Oprah Winfrey

Oprah who? You'll have to forgive me I must be a secularist.

Martin Luther was just an ordinary man, despite his signal role in discrediting medieval Catholicism.

So modern Catholicism is the lesser of two evils? Crickey.

Nobody believes he was "infallible

So I've heard, particularly those who followed his racing tips.

could speak "ex cathedra."

I once had a go at learning German and that was challenging enough.

What we hold is that if the Bible claims it, it's authoritative.

Wow! That sounds like something that takes more determination and perseverance than learning to speak ex cathedra. Well done.

[Vendetta]

It has been a Christian staple that knowledge should be rejected for obedience.

Untrue, of course.

I don't know where you got that assumption -- and I'm not saying it was from nowhere: maybe you have some experience, I don't know -- but it isn't from any Christians I know...and I'm certain I know a lot more of them than you do. It's also not in their Scriptures, and it's certainly not evident in the doctrine or practices of most, so I think you're barking up the wrong tree there.

You're misreading the Genesis story. The tree wasn't "The Tree of Knowledge." It was "The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil." But you'd have to read beyond the Gnostics to find that out. You'd actually have to read Genesis.

Well, your superior knowledge aside, are these Christians not saying what I just put?

Martin Luther did.
“Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.”
“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.”

How about what Joyce Meyers says?

http://imgur.com/IBroXK9

In the Christian take of this myth, disobedience caused our fall. That is not the Jewish take as they see Eden as where man was elevated. Not where he fell.

If you are to only read Genesis, then you will not know the real moral of that story.

That being that God was trying to keep man stupid and blind and that we should all fight against a God who wants stupid slaves.

Regards
DL

Just because those two individuals spoke out doesn't mean they represent the entirety of the faith. That is an overgeneralization. Just because one who describes themselves as Christian proclaims something doesn't mean that it is the duty of the rest to abide by, or even agree with their views. You cannot use the perspectives of few to describe the masses.

[Justintruth]

I am an Islamophobe. If you are not, you might not be a moral person.

Some Muslims follow an ideology, as written in their religious writing, which allows slavery of Muslim women. This sect of Islam allows the sale of child brides to others within their cult. These people want a Caliphate that promotes and uses slavery.

The Muslim men in this slave holding cult have submitted to Allah and are eager slaves to him thanks to the pleasant heavenly gifts he promises. They believe themselves to be favored by God and hate all those who are not.

History of religion, especially Christianity, shows that when a belief is strong, even if miss-guided, ends all compromise within the believer. Thus is born Inquisitions, Jihads, Honor killing and murder of non-believers and apostates.

The assumptions that these people make of God, without any proof and based on the supernatural and the writings of imperfect men, become so arrogant, that they act as slave traders based on their beliefs without regard for moral and ethical standards. They in fact break their own reciprocity rules.

These Muslims allow this theological certainty to create a tyrannical cult of slaved men who then make second class slaves out of their female children. Naming these Muslim women and girl’s chattel would be an understatement. They are truly slaves, as Allah demands.

These Muslims imitate their slave holding master, Allah, and like all tyrants, hate all others not of their ilk. They allow their hate to push them to violence against the free people in the free world.

Islamophobia is a fear of Islam. Those who do not fear and hate this slave holding cult of Islam, along with the other inhuman and immoral policies that Islam and Sharia allow, are not moral people. Moral people will fight against slavery.

I fear that free people will not be Islamophobic enough, because of their fear of being labelled racist or Islamophobe, to rise up and give secours to the unwilling female slave of Islam.

I am proudly an Islamophobe. If you are not you might not be a moral person.

Are you a moral person?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nri300CcCuE

Regards
DL

You are like a man who sees a wolf in sheeps clothing and who then claims sheep are carnivores.

Islam is surrender to the will of God. I have lived in Islamic countries and they don't have slavery there.

What you are saying is just derived from propaganda designed to bolster the acquisition of petroleum. You didn't even think it up.

But keep saying it. You and the other fundamentalists, Cristian, Islamic, and secular, can then get the war 9/11 was designed to create.

The war is not even with the dead children killed in the last strike. The real question is what else we could have done with all that effort.

[Immanuel Can]

Islam is surrender to the will of God. I have lived in Islamic countries and they don't have slavery there.

However,
https://www.thoughtco.com/the-role-of-i ... very-44532

[Greatest I am]

How about what Joyce Meyers says?

Wow. Are you ever missing the point.

Joyce Meyers has as much authority among Christians as does Oprah Winfrey among secularists. Look, the distinctive feature of Protestantism is the primacy of the individual conscience...so there are no Popes. Nobody speaks for us but ourselves. What we believe and what we practice is what we believe to be true personally. We've got a fair number of core common principles -- things like issues of salvation, Christology and basic practices, but also a range of views on secondary issues like pattern of meeting and clergy. And if you've wondered why there are quite a few various denominations and groups within Protestantism, that is precisely why.

In Protestant understanding, even Martin Luther was just an ordinary man, despite his signal role in discrediting medieval Catholicism. Nobody believes he was "infallible in matters of doctrine" or could speak "ex cathedra." What he said, he said for himself and anyone who cared to follow him in that. But not even the Lutherans would all subscribe to that statement, let alone the rest of the Protestant groups.

And Joyce Meyer...well, oy vey.

What we hold is that if the Bible claims it, it's authoritative. Otherwise, it just isn't.

The bible makes many immoralities justified. Like genocide.

Christians thing killing instead of curing is good and that would include brain cells.

Religions, at their roots, are created for social manipulation and control and the brain dead are more easily led that thinking people.

That is why they think seeking knowledge to be fall. Think A & E.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

[
Just because those two individuals spoke out doesn't mean they represent the entirety of the faith. That is an overgeneralization. Just because one who describes themselves as Christian proclaims something doesn't mean that it is the duty of the rest to abide by, or even agree with their views. You cannot use the perspectives of few to describe the masses.

Yes I can as they all fly the cross.

You go ahead and try to separate the wheat from the chaff.

I do agree that Christians have corrupted their teachings to where no one really believes much of anything and thus a change to some other denomination that caters to individual preferences and taste.

A made to measure religion where you can pick your favorite Jesus.

Mormons like the space faring Jesus.

Regards
DL

[Immanuel Can]

they think seeking knowledge to be fall. Think A & E.

Again...

"Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil." Not "Tree of Knowledge."

You really need to read the passage itself. It will help a lot. Go see Genesis 2:9.

"Out of the ground the Lord God caused to grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil."

Genesis 2:17

"...but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.”

It was to become familiar with evil that they were forbidden. Not to become knowledgeable.

Your Gnostic texts are lying to you. I'm not asking you to believe me. Go and check, and see for yourself.

[Greatest I am]

[

Islam is surrender to the will of God. I have lived in Islamic countries and they don't have slavery there.

When one surrenders his will to another, that is slavery.

I will get you what you need to see the light. Which countries?

The war is not even with the dead children killed in the last strike. The real question is what else we could have done with all that effort.

Put money into Muslim schools and Mosques so as to reduce the hate their preach against all non-Muslims.

That or target the lying imams and teachers.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

they think seeking knowledge to be fall. Think A & E.

Again...

"Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil." Not "Tree of Knowledge."

You really need to read the passage itself. It will help a lot. Go see Genesis 2:9.

"Out of the ground the Lord God caused to grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil."

Genesis 2:17

"...but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.”

It was to become familiar with evil that they were forbidden. Not to become knowledgeable.

Your Gnostic texts are lying to you. I'm not asking you to believe me. Go and check, and see for yourself.

Thanks for the advise but I prefer to think for myself.

Some speculate, as I do, that the tree of knowledge of good and evil contains all knowledge because all knowledge is subject to being either good or evil.

I have tried and failed, as well as many that I have asked, to find any issue that goes against this view and no one has come up with one to break that view.

Give it a try and come up with any knowledge that is not subject to good and evil. If you cannot then calling the tree of knowledge just that is an accurate designation for a tree with all knowledge.

Regards
DL

[Immanuel Can]

You go ahead and try to separate the wheat from the chaff.

That's not V's job. It's Messiah's job. (Luke 3:17) But V is allowed to discern them as well (Matthew 7:15-23).

You say:

Thanks for the advise but I prefer to think for myself.

Great! I'm thrilled! There's hope.

Look at it this way: when I wanted to know what the Koran said, I went and read it. When I wanted to know what the Gita said, I read it. When I wanted to know what the Gnostic "gospels" said, I read them. That's really the only way to go for an intelligent and fair-minded person to proceed. I would never have felt honest to speak about what any of these say if I had not done so.

So do yourself a favour: read, instead of taking what you imagine Christians believe from some bad secondary source. I can tell from what you say that you're only reading Gnostics, and thinking they're telling you the truth.

But Gnosticism itself claims that much that passes for human "knowledge" is a bunch of lies. So just take your own Gnosticism literally, and go and find out for yourself. It's only fair, if you want to know the truth. You'll discover that your Gnostic secondary sources love to isolate verses and twist them to say what they clearly do not say in context. (Now, if you're afraid of the truth about that, you won't make much of a Gnostic anyway, will you?)

In regard to Christianity, separating the wheat from the chaff is actually incredibly straightforward. As Christ said, "Not everybody who calls me 'Lord', Lord' will enter the Kingdom of Heaven." (Matthew 7:21...see yourself) That tells you straight off that the Head of the faith denies that all the people calling themselves "Christians" really are what they say. It's only those that do as He has told them to do. (See same verse) who you need to take seriously. If you know what He instructed His true followers to do, then you know who is a true follower.

That's it. Wheat from chaff...very easily.

[Immanuel Can]

Put money into Muslim schools and Mosques so as to reduce the hate their preach against all non-Muslims.

Pay them?

That's about the most counterproductive idea I've seen on the subject, honestly. They "preach hate," so give them some money and they might not. Really?

That or target the lying imams and teachers.

With what? Christmas bonuses?

[Immanuel Can]

Some speculate, as I do, that the tree of knowledge of good and evil contains all knowledge because all knowledge is subject to being either good or evil.

I have tried and failed, as well as many that I have asked, to find any issue that goes against this view and no one has come up with one to break that view.

Very easy. First, you've already called your own claim a "speculation," which means that you know it isn't necessarily true.

Secondly, the text specifies exactly what kind of knowledge is ruled out...not ALL knowledge, but knowledge of evil. We know this for certain, because the text also says that in the Garden, everything was ALREADY good (Genesis 1:31). So knowing "good" was ubiquitous, and everybody already had it. What they didn't have is knowledge of what was distinct from it, namely evil.

It's very clearly the moral differentiation between what was already known (good) and something else that was not-it (evil) that was being interdicted. It was not "knowledge of steam power," or "knowledge of chemistry." It certainly wasn't knowledge of ecology or biology, for these were specifically commissioned into the hands of mankind as positive duties (Genesis 2:15,19) . And it certainly wasn't theological knowledge, since man knew God (Genesis 1:28, 3:8).

Give it a try and come up with any knowledge that is not subject to good and evil. If you cannot then calling the tree of knowledge just that is an accurate designation for a tree with all knowledge.

Done. You can see that several types of knowledge were positively commanded for man to have. It wasn't "all knowledge" that was the problem at all.

Again, the Gnostics lie.

[Greatest I am]

"It's very clearly the moral differentiation between what was already known (good) and something else that was not-it (evil) that was being interdicted."

I see you have failed to show anything that is not subject to good and evil.

Therefore the tree, by whatever name you call it, is all possible knowledge.

Regards
DL

[Immanuel Can]

"It's very clearly the moral differentiation between what was already known (good) and something else that was not-it (evil) that was being interdicted."

I see you have failed to show anything that is not subject to good and evil.

Eh? That's exactly what I showed. Did you not notice at least four types of knowledge I specified that are shown NOT to be inherently evil? (There are lots more, of course; but I gave you four.)

Therefore the tree, by whatever name you call it, is all possible knowledge.

Nope. To believe that, you'd have to think that human beings had zero knowledge at all prior to the Fall...a thing flatly discredited by Genesis, as you can see.

But I get it. I understand Gnosticism, so I can see why you can't allow yourself to see it.

Without the idea that the creator god (i.e. the Demiurge) hates humans to have knowledge (gnosis), Gnosticism would have no special gnostic wisdom to offer, and the whole sandcastle of Gnosticism would collapse. It's tough to give up the pride of "being right" and "seeing through" or "having wisdom" that other people can't have without agreeing with you.

Unfortunately, that's merely a hubristic delusion. The Gnostic interpretation bears no resemblance to the Biblical text. It's an illegitimate "co-optation," not an interpretation. If you can read Genesis, you can see that.

Unlike your Gnostic superiors, I will not tell you to trust me. I'll tell you to read and think about it for yourself. You'll figure it out...if you let yourself.

[Greatest I am]

"It's very clearly the moral differentiation between what was already known (good) and something else that was not-it (evil) that was being interdicted."

I see you have failed to show anything that is not subject to good and evil.

Eh? That's exactly what I showed. Did you not notice at least four types of knowledge I specified that are shown NOT to be inherently evil? (There are lots more, of course; but I gave you four.)

Therefore the tree, by whatever name you call it, is all possible knowledge.

Nope. To believe that, you'd have to think that human beings had zero knowledge at all prior to the Fall...a thing flatly discredited by Genesis, as you can see.

But I get it. I understand Gnosticism, so I can see why you can't allow yourself to see it.

Without the idea that the creator god (i.e. the Demiurge) hates humans to have knowledge (gnosis), Gnosticism would have no special gnostic wisdom to offer, and the whole sandcastle of Gnosticism would collapse. It's tough to give up the pride of "being right" and "seeing through" or "having wisdom" that other people can't have without agreeing with you.

Unfortunately, that's merely a hubristic delusion. The Gnostic interpretation bears no resemblance to the Biblical text. It's an illegitimate "co-optation," not an interpretation. If you can read Genesis, you can see that.

Unlike your Gnostic superiors, I will not tell you to trust me. I'll tell you to read and think about it for yourself. You'll figure it out...if you let yourself.

Yet you failed to note that the truth of your views and descriptions are subject to good, if they are true, and evil if they are not.

You are correct that Gnostic Christian readings and morality are not similar to Christianity. They are superior.

We do not believe that any genocidal God should be followed and adored.

Regards
DL