IF you're "married"

OK. Since the Christians were there before the Muslims (some 600 years earlier) it's clear the Muslims started this round (remember that Cyrus destroyed Babylon, as James told, that was the previous round: Jews agains Iraqi's).
However, that doesn't mean that Allah wouldn't want to punish the Christians for it, does it?

It's like 2 gangs killing each others members, but on an incomparable scale. And both say it's righteous.

Kees

intervening in that manner is folly, IMO. any messages from God will be more subtle. He'd have no interest in killing anyone knowing that they'd eventually be dead anyway. I believe it would be logical to Mr. Spock that God wouldn't waste energy killing off people as punishment for anything at all in that earthly time is just a finger snap compared to the eternal punishment that it's said may come to anyone.

We don't even have a decent grasp of that old history as it was experienced by those who actually lived it...and whose thinking and standards were probably far different from our own. We're at the mercy of those who could write and they were few and far between for quite some time. How do we even know how accurate they were? There are many embellished accounts of battles as they contain scientific impossibilities. Yet, we believe them to be true and feel we can praise or condemn people at our own whim and whimsy.

We were given our own free will and a decent brain. I don't understand why we don't use the later more often.

Start the new "Church of What's Happening Now"?

and neither is flinging scripture at those who haven't accepted it or consider it to be important. Morality and good ethics don't come from a church or a book. They are already within you or they are not but may arrive later. It's something that's already within that causes one explore and seek the comfort of knowing truth. That exploration may lead to scriptural study in due time but won't likely begin with it. If we want to teach what Jesus taught, we must first learn to teach in the way Jesus taught. I don't get the feeling that Jesus beat people over the head with scripture pointing to his father's anger, wrath and vengefulness. I can't believe anyone can be frightened into heaven...and I think Mr. Spock just might agree.

Morals come from God. Review Pauls whole diatribe about law and sin. Romans 7.


Luke 13:3 ESV
No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.


Acts 17:30 ESV
The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent,

What someone does or not believe doesn't remove from us the responsibility to spread the word of what will happen without repentance. I know it says in one place "the love of many will grow cold" in reference to all the sin near the end of the world, but the commandment "go into all the world and preach the good news...." still stands firm.

Here's some verses on the need of all, not just Christians, to repent of wrong doing.

http://www.openbible.info/topics/repentance

Even during the Law of Moses the demand of repentance was on all nations, perhaps you remember Jonah and Nineveh? Remember even Balaam who was not a follower of Moses was nevertheless a prophet of God?

They can believe or not believe, but they still need to hear it.

Romans chapter 10 - or "WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED." How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? How will they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, "HOW BEAUTIFUL ARE THE FEET OF THOSE WHO BRING GOOD NEWS OF GOOD THINGS!"

to you? The end result is the same.

If it's God acting we Europeans could change our fate by changing our behaviour and trust that God is willing to forgive us our sins from the past.
If it's Allah acting it's hopeless.

And I'm sure it matters to you. You wouldn't like Allah to be in the lead.

Kees

didn't want the idolatrous Babylonians be their punishers when God sent them into captivity. It didn't mean he endorsed the Babylonian pantheon of gods.

allowed to marry. They probably used the same arguments, like marrying your dog, etc.

As for polygamy, I couldn't care less. One man - many women, one woman - many men, group marriage - none of it bothers me. I do want to watch a divorce in a group marriage - I want to be married to him but not to him. Better than soap operas.

There should always be an age of consent for marriage or anything else.

Like I said, I'm sure the exact same arguments were used to try to stop marriage between races.

...."christian church" you attend again?

All of us have a purpose and a mission who join a church or congregation, don't we? For most, it's just to display to others the best example we can of what our faith represents. We don't need to go around telling people that what they are doing is wrong. We're better off, IMO, if we just show (by example) a way that is better and more attractive. If you can't go to them in a non-judgmental way, behave in a manner that makes them want to come to you.

Ah, the Church of Pretending & Make Believe Jesus. Any Bibles in the pews? Have all their pages? Special Edition dropping out what they won't accept? The "I"m OK, You're OK" doctrinal and confession?

"As for polygamy, I couldn't care less. One man - many women, one woman - many men, group marriage - none of it bothers me."

Think of all those life/health insurance, death or welfare benefits many wives/husbands and vast numbers of children could collect from other people's tax payments. So many voters to choose from and so little time....."Let's pass a new law to include them"

you have no moral or religious objections against the idea of polygamy, just a few financial ones, that could surely be settled in a satisfactory way. In fact, if you have two husbands, there might be no need for any social benefit at all if one of them dies, so it might even save money in stead of costing.

Anyway, it's a big step to becoming liberal yourself. Welcome. You'll find you are in good company.

Kees

you didn't see my moral objections in my first response to Diana....however, most liberals, if not all, only see theft of taxpayer money for their 'social justice' causes as financial or voting benefits to them. Anyone who actually voices an objection to that theft is immediately chastised by liberals....which you just did and proved my point.

I have no compelling interest in 'stepping' over to the dark side, thank you.....

Also we are now paying for polygamy. A man has several wives but only one is legal. The rest are single mothers and get welfare and food stamps and Medicaid and all those other social services you object to. If he were legally married to all of them, all of their income would be counted toward welfare and it would probably be less or non-existent than it is now.

Still haven't heard any objections that don't involve religion, the bible or it's just icky.

since he's only a 'part-time' husband, the others all qualify for goodies instead of working to support 'her' children (no mention of who the 'daddy' is and whether he or others are having to pay child support for any of them. He 'comes and goes' at will but because he's only considered to be a 'boyfriend' who doesn't actually LIVE with her, everybody makes out on taxpayer money, including him since he doesn't have to pay any of the normal expenses that go along with 'marriage'.

And you approve of this only because you 'have no problem' with it.

If he were legally married to all of them, all of their income would be counted toward welfare and it would probably be less or non-existent than it is now.

....would, or should, believe women who first receive welfare should also be blocked from having any more children after that, so they will not increase the amount of money they receive? I'm glad we can finally agree on something. Should that be done with mandated birth control shots, perhaps have to appear monthly or every trimester to receive the shots? After all, we are talking cost to America and excess of children in families.

If he were legally married to all of them, the wives and children would be eligible for death/disability/social security benefits should something to happen to him, but they would also be entitled to those same benefits even if they aren't all married to him if the children were adopted by him or were his natural children. If the women are working to support themselves and their children, that would be the only way all income would be counted whether they are married to him or not.

If they aren't married to him, and none of the children were his naturally then they are all entitled to welfare benefits (but the daddies whoever/wherever they are, should be responsible for paying child support). If the women are working, then their income, plus the child support, would be the only income counted.

Since you stated that they are all collecting welfare, the assumption has to be made that 1) none of the women work 2) none are receiving any social security/disability/unemployment/death benefits and 3) none of the daddies are paying child support.

Wonderful.........and you still would approve of a polygamous marriage because 'it doesn't bother you' that taxpayers are supporting them all or that they even consider themselves married? Quite the liberal, aren't you? Sounds to me like the man is the only one making out (literally) with many cows around that are actually supporting HIM on taxpayer money because no matter which house he goes to (assuming they live separately), he's well fed, has a roof over his head, and all utilities paid for without any effort on his part at all. If they all live together and each mother is getting welfare for herself and her brood, I've never heard of that type of arrangement being legal with regard to social services' benefits they receive....not to mention Medicaid/Obamacare for all.....

What part of any of this don't YOU understand?

And there you are.........the disgusting pig I always thought you were. He can swing his tool in many different directions with no responsibilities because the government pays so well, and only YOU would see the 'benefit' of not having to see him every day.

They don't call it polygamy, but much the same thing going on there, except it's a mix of polygamy and polygany, otherwise known as fornication.

but it's common.

Haven't you ever heard of running a scam against the government? I'm not talking about disability or survivor benefits. I'm talking about welfare and food stamps and Medicaid for each "wife" and her brood (and she does keep popping them out). They are wives in their church but no marriage licenses. They do live together as in a group home but their benefits are individual.

If they were actually married (legally), their income would be combined along with the "husband" and the welfare would be less or non-existent.

If you don't understand what I'm saying, you are being deliberately dense. You are too smart for your "misunderstanding".

When race was the obstacle, the definition of marriage wasn't the issue at all.

because "preached" doesn't make it so.

and their foolishness.