They were Christians. They based their beliefs on the same books you base yours. It is only that their interpretation of those books was different. It is just like Muslims who interpret the Bible differently.

Ah, well I'm afraid I do not always read posts which are directed at someone else. But if you do not want to repeat yourself, a good solution is to simply post a link to your previous post.

Well, I have a different interpretation of Romans 7. If you read further, Paul says that the law is not sin, but that he would never have known sin if not for the law:

"7What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet."[b] 8But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead. 9Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death."

My interpretation of this is as follows:

When the law was spelled out, people would not base their lives around obligation to God, but would instead base their lives on obligation to the law. This led to temptation to break the law. Paul would not have considered coveting anything, except that the law specifically told him not to covet, and this led him to think about what he might covet, which tempted him to covet.

Umm, maybe that last sentence was confusing, but the point is that Paul doesn't appear to be saying that the Old law is bad, only that spelling out a law and saying, "follow this law" is a bad idea. That tempts people to break the law. The new followers of Christ should worry about spirituality, not about the law.

So the law is removed, not because people should not follow it, but because listing it out like that only caused people to care more about the law than God and tempted people to break the law.

That is my interpretation. But even if you do not agree with it, Paul specifically wrote that the law is not sin. If this law does indeed refer to the laws of the Old Testament, then the actions described in Deuteronomy and Leviticus are not sin. But those actions clearly evil, and stating that they are not sin is certainly a stamp of approval on violence.

It sounds to me that even though he isn't categorizing them as terrorists, he still hates the violence. He still does not condone their actions. His concern is that both the Jewish and the Muslims are engaging in violence. If we call one "terrorism" and we don't say the same about the other, then it implies that the "terrorists" are inherently wrong, while the other group is inherently right. But it may be that violence on either side is wrong and they should be judged as equally wrong.

Or that's how I interpreted what he said, at least.

Fair enough. You could make that argument if you want. Your interpretation of Muhammad's actions may indeed be the most accurate. But that's a matter of opinion and debate. I don't mind your having a negative opinion of the Qu'ran or Muhuammad.

But not everyone evaluates the Qu'ran and Muhammad that way. Maybe their evaluation is incorrect, maybe not, but what is important is that their actions are good.

Self defense is not being a terrorist little boy. From day one, Israel has been under attack by your brothers. You talk out of both sides of your mouth. On one side you say you are against violence, then out of the other side you side with violence against Israel. Little boy.

better to be a little boy than a little man. At least a boy is SUPPOSED to be little.. which inceidentally i am not.

And yes it seems i speak out of both sides of my mouth.. as opposed to out of my ASS

fool

/

I'd rather tell the truth out of my ass than spout lies out of both sides of my mouth. Little boys piss their pants and cry for their momma. Muhammed was a pedophile and a war monger.

Do you always call people names who tell the truth about Muhammed little boy? My, you are so spiritual.

Stupid is as stupid does.

Nope.. merely a mental juggernaut compared to ur primitive intellect.

And i'm a college dropout... can you believe that??

Your infantile rage is not a debate.. you are just a verbal bully..

Anybody with a brain on this site tears your idiocy to shreds.... which is when you revert to the crude language and offensive personal comments ( please see above) ..

SO have another little rant why don't you... maybe it'll make you less of a pain to your colleagues at work.. who knows..

And this comes from the guy who says he is for peace, yet defends Hezbullah and defends attacks against Israel. You can't defend your position, so all you can do is attack Alias with juvenile insults. Typical two-faced muslim.

O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. [Koran, al-Ma'idah 5:51.11]

Ignore disbelievers and their poisonous talk. [Koran 33:48]

Stay away from non-Muslims. They are all liars. [Koran 9:107]

Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him. Sahih Al-Bukhari (9:57)

Garments of fire have been prepared for the unbelievers. Scalding water shall be poured upon their heads, melting their skins and that which is in their bellies. (Koran 22:19-22:23)

Slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush. (Koran 9:5)

Take him and fetter him and expose him to hell fire. And then insert him in a chain whereof the length is seventy cubits. (Koran 69:30-37)

I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, Smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger tips of them. (Koran 8:12)

They should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides. (Koran 5:33)

You both speak on your point good. We must remember, however, that just because a person shares a religion you don't care for is no reason to assume that person is bad, evil, or a terrorist. Until that person commits a violent or unlawful act; he is innocent.
There has been a lot of posts here about the teachings of the Bible and the Koran. The issue to me is not so much which religion we believe in; but how we interpret those teachings.
As such, in this country your religion; whether Islam or Christian will not be any defense for any crime you may (but hopefully not) commit.

I see it as a concerted effort by muslims to force Americans to respect all their behavior without question. The resident muslim here calls me names because I will not respect Mohammed. He says he is a man of peace, yet he supports Hezbollah. Does that seem strange to you? There are so many contradictions in this religion (cult). Accept us or off with your head. Accept us or we will cry racist or bigot and make a scene. Looks to me they have learned from the liberals what it takes to put people on the defensive and are using it to clear a path for domination. That is what I believe. Dhimitude.