jefferiah

Well I cannot convince you one way or the other Drea. I am fully aware of that. But I will say that the Genesis account is certainly incredible in its detail, when compared with most other mythology and folklore, going so far as to provide the dimensions of the ark itself, which I believe some engineers have said is a very good design. Anyways, about the original topic, I don't have a clue about scientology or why it is banned in Germany or if it should be banned. I don't know enough about it. I know that my parents have told me that when they lived in Vancouver they knew an Australian family in the same building as them who had come on the famous boat trip.

Sure. I personally believe, though you may disagree, that the Shemites kept a more accurate record of the Noah story than did the Sumerians. That flood story exists in many places around the world with varying degrees of similarity. In India Manu is told by a little fish to build a boat to escape the flood and yada yada yada, later ends up on a mountain. In some cultures the story becomes more tribal in nature and really senseless. Have you read Gilgamesh. Gilgamesh was a Sumerian Hercules fellow. He was not Noah. But in one part of his epic he wanted the secret of eternal life and was told to go see the old man Utnapishtim who had survived a great flood. And it tells of the boat, the animals, sending out the bird, and landing on a mountain in Assyria. But this is only a small part of the Gilgamesh epic. The thing is though if you read that story, the biblical one comes across as the most like an historical account. Whereas the others, including Gilgamesh have a more mythical quality. Sure it probably all sounds like hokum to you, I am sure. But I think if you read both you will know what I mean. If you were to ask me which was the original story I would say the Biblical one is much closer. In fact the Biblical account even names the mountain. I know that Gilgamesh predates the Torah but I think that the Shemitic peoples of Ur kept alot of records which later translated into the early Bible stories. I have no proof of this, so I don't expect you to just take me at my word on it. But I believe that the flood story for instance is true, and I believe that the Hebrews must have had older records of it than the Bible itself and older than Gilgamesh, which Bible writers must have referenced. I believe this simply because this one flood story which has little importance in the whole of the Gilgamesh epic makes more sense in the Biblical version. Meanwhile the flood stories still existed in other places but the accuracy dwindled more and became obscured. So in Gilgamesh we have a lot of it intact but less than in the Bible. And then in other nations like India it becomes even cloudier. Even the Aztecs and Mayans had a story of how the creator(s) were displeased with what they had made and sent a flood to destroy the world.

Well if they are going out of their way to be mean to others, then perhaps they are not truly repentant. Also there is something in the NT about knowledge of the law--About those who know alot about God and religion and are not productive, and those who don't know but have righteousness in their hearts. It also says God judges less harshly those who do not know. And it also says that even Satan acknowledges there is a God. That alone is not salvation.

deleted

Well, the Bible says that even repentance is a gift from God. Sure I commit those sins as well. They are not mentioned in the Bible though. And I think some of those seven deadly sins might be contrary to what is said there. And you make an excellent example by pointing out righteous wrath or anger.

Jesus himself said that it is impossible for man, but what is impossible for man is possible for God. Jesus did say that the Kingdom of heaven is within you or "among you" (which I think means that Heaven is not something you enjoy or experience with your outward senses...the root of it is in the intangible things--the world of the heart and mind---its not about a place where you have a billion dollars and fluffy white clouds and lots of virgins), but he also said that the Father was in Him, and that He (Jesus) would be in those who love him, and that the fruit cannot grow apart from the Vine. Basically that thing which is in within you flows from a source. Christianity is also referred to as a body with many parts, with Jesus as the head. As a finger I cannot assert my independence and seperate from the body. Some people would say that Christianity is not a religion. When someone repents they must have a true sense of self-conviction. If they repent simply for heaven it is meaningless. And true repentance creates the desire to try to purify oneself in deed. Paul said that where sin increases grace and mercy increase. But then he says that this is not an excuse for someone to keep sinning. Whoever sees it this way is not truly repentant. Let's say you had two children Drea. You catch them both doing something wrong. You may forgive them both but one of them has the attitude that your forgiveness for what was wrong means it is ok to continue doing so, while the other tries to not do it in the future. One of those children loves and respects you while the other just looks at you as if your forgiving nature is to be abused.

Asking people for donations is legal. As for your "will I go to heaven if?", I don't think I have ever heard someone say that in my life. And since Christianity is based on the premise that no one can do anything good enough to get into "heaven" it would be irrelevant.

But I see nothing wrong with saying that either. If it is your opinion that such and such a group is trying to take over you should be able to put it in writing. Or even if you wish to say that such and such a group is subhuman. Did he say such and such a group does not deserve to live?

I think that if someone wants to say such and such a group is a bunch of losers they ought to be able to. No one raises the Human Rights alarm when people make generalizations about Americans. By your own standard Carolyn Parrish ought to be tried before the kangaroo courts. There is nothing he said that is so dangerous to society. If he had incited people to commit violent acts against Palestinians with a direct command to do so then perhaps this would be the type of freedom that could be curtailed, but making an opinionated assessment of a certain group ought never be illegal, regardless of whether you or I agree with that assessment. Reading what he said in the "actionable" quotes you provided, I don't think that this man should be considered a criminal. It amounts to what everyone else is saying......certain people think it should be their right to censor speech which they find offensive. Not speech which is directly harmful. Ridiculous.

Well he "could" be yes. And as for the issue of his relatives being the same as yours, you "could" be from the same peoples. I don't know of any verse in Genesis which specifically refers to other humanoids, but nonetheless such a thing would not matter. If Genesis is your source, then you should follow it completely. After the death of Abel, Cain left and Seth was born. Noah and his family would have been Sethites, direct descendants of Adam and Eve. As I recall Noah and his family were the only ones spared. The house of Noah was divided into the subcategories of his three sons--Shem, Ham and Japheth. Abraham belonged to the Shemite (or Semite) clan. Even if you could establish that Rue was non-Semitic and from an outside people (which you cannot), it would still not change the fact that Biblically he would still be a descendant of Adam and Eve. God has made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth (Acts 17:26). Another interesting aspect of the whole Biblical clan thing is the split in the house of Israel. Under King David and Solomon the twelve tribes of Israel and the Levites were united as one nation. But after Solomon's death the Kingdom split in two--the Southern Kingdom of Judah, which consisted of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin (the Jews) and the Nothern Kingdom of Israel (the other ten tribes). Both nations were attacked and their peoples were sent into exile. But the Northern Kingdom was attacked first by the Assyrians and exiled to a different area. The Bible tells the story of how the southern Kingdom was later attacked by and exiled to Babylon (under Nebuchadnezzar) which later fell to the Medo-Persians (when Neb's heir, Belshazzar, saw the writing on the wall) who later allowed them to go back home (The Esther story). But there is no story of the return of the exiled Ten Tribes of the Northern Kingdom who were attacked by Assyria. (Note: Jacob (Israel) only had 12 sons, and yet there were 12 tribes plus the seperated Levite clan. That makes thirteen clans from twelve children. What happened here was that Jacob's son Joseph and his descendants actually counted as two tribes--named after Joseph's sons Ephraim and Manasseh--thus accounting for the extra tribe. Kohens are sometimes counted seperately but they are a sub-branch of the Levites, said to be direct descendants of Moses' brother Aaron.)

Actually though, even though we do not always see eye to eye on every issue, I think Rue is an excellent poster. He may have a run-on sentence once in a while, but when you are posting on the fly and with emotion sometimes that happens. I think he is particularly excellent when it comes to posting about Israel.

Ah c'mon. Rue is simply trying to dig this zen forum for kicks while he slides across the slippery surface of this American night, with a thousand buddhist saxophones wailing the notes of eternity, in and out in constant flux, receding into the Void of the great Cowboy highway, where angelic moonlit children buy Coca Colas from the cosmic soda machines of freedom.

You are stretching it quite a great deal here, Mr. Greenthumb, and I am confident most Canadians who would read this would be able to see through this cheap logic. Whether you agree with it or not, the suggestion that Canada's immigration policy is very lax and that it ought to be somewhat stricter is not outright hatred of immigrants. As others have said, Canada is quite easy to emigrate to when compared with a lot of other nations. The idea is not to stop immigration but to have some sort of screening process that achieves a good balance. I don't think that warrants a white hood comment. Lazarus, as for your Filipina woman, best of luck. I think Mike David himself has said, in a thread here not so long ago, that people from the Phillipines tend to make great productive citizens. I don't think he is saying we should bar everyone out. He seems to be suggesting a stricter immigration system than the lax one we now have in place. I don't know much about this issue, and I don't know what is the best course of action. Maybe you think we ought to have wide open floodgates. That is fine. Everyone has an opinion. But I don't think its fair to label Mike as a bigot over his suggestion.

I havent reported anyone yet since I joined here, and I dont intend to. You started off on the wrong foot here and you refuse to acknowledge that. From the outset (your very first post) you were bossy. And when people post back at you, you start acting like some sort of victim over it. I don't know whether you are serious or not. Mohammed is not sacred to us. So if someone thinks Mohammed is a rapist they are free to say so. If you don' t think Mohammed is a rapist, then that is your opinion. Someone insulting Mohammed takes nothing away from your right to follow his teaching.

Well, actually Buddha is a term for any enlightened one not just for Siddharta Guatama. I think the big fat Buddha you see in the Asian restaurants is actually Hotei, or laughing Buddha, an enlightened Chinese street bum who carried a bag of treats and toys for kids, not the actual Buddha.

Ah see now you are being bossy again. Why don't you take your own advice?

What are on earth are you talking about? I am not raping you. Did that woman rape the people in Sudan? Isn't it the Muslims there who have pillaged black communities for a century taking them as slaves and raping them and forcing them to convert. Do the Filipinos rape the Muslims there? One does not have to make a projection about Mohammed. He was betrothed to Aysha when she was 5 or 6. He was a pedophile. And a raider. And a terrorist. This I know, for the Koran tells me so.

What are you talking about. The posters who ganged up on you were Dancer and I. A whole two of us. And we didnt consult each other with some plan to gang up on you. M Dancer posts independently of me. And the reason you received such a response was because you came in here talking about people who post in favour of Israel and said you have had enough and that there is to be no more of that kind of crap. Basically you are acting as if you own the place. This is why I decided to post to you right away. Because your attitude is laughable. Don't post pro Israel posts you say. Then don't use emoticons. You are something else. And you say that if we dont have respect for Islam we can expect more 9/11. Doesn't that in itself say something about the Islamic attitude? You can insult Christians, Buddhists, Jews....but no one threatens you over it.

I was not afraid of you when I was calling you Sir, and I am certainly not afraid of you now that I am not. I did not insult you. I said Mohammed was a pedophile (he liked em pretty young didnt he?) and that he was the first muslim terrorist. You have the Koran don't you. It's all there. That's not hate speech. And no one in the west has to stop saying things like that or drawing pictures of Mohammed simply because it is illegal in their nations. By the same token people can insult other religious figures. But it seems as if Muslims are the only group who can't ignore it and feel a need to blow something up over some perceived slight about Mohammed, be it a Teddy Bear or a Cartoon.

Nice of you to mention Cair and Can-cair

But here we have freedom of speech. If in Arabia or Sudan they want to suppress the freedom to make a cartoon making fun of the prophet thats one thing. You can't come here and tell people who they can or cannot criticize. The rest of the world does not have to obey insane Islamic laws. Mohammed was a pedophile and the first Muslim terrorist!!! See.

She did not name the bear Muhammed. She asked the Sudanese students to name the bear. They named it Muhammed. In light of the fact that people there have been asking for her execution, the most natural response to such a ridiculousness is to say "Well I will name my dog Muhammed." Likewise when you start commanding that I dont call you Sir or not to use emoticons, I feel a much stronger urge to do so. Suppose I did name my dog Muhammed, would you think I deserve another 9/11. People criticize people all the time. I am not saying its nice. But you seem to think that if we do it to Muslims that we can expect another 9/11. That is quite telling. So I mean a poster here not too long ago asserted the idea that Jesus was gay. Now I disagreed with him. But I did not threaten him. No one sought that posters life for saying such a thing. Do you think that Christians should? You seem to think that calling a teddy bear (something which is associated with goodness) Mohammed is offensive. What if someone said Mohammed was gay? Or lets say someone pointed out that he was married to a 9 year old. By Canadian law Mohammad would be a pedophile, wouldn't he? So if someone says something like that, what do you think should happen to them?

When did I mock muslims? By criticizing Sudan Muslims for asking that a woman's head be removed for something she did not even do?

Actually I am not the least bit afraid of you SIR, . You are flattering yourself. If anyone was afraid of you they would listen to all your ridiculous commands. And it is in light of those ridiculous commands of yours...you know like in the thread where you tell people to stop posting pro-Israel as if you are an authority here...that we are ganging up on you. And actually the gang so far is about two people.