Page 56 of 56 FirstFirst ... 6465253545556
Results 551 to 556 of 556

Thread: Afghanistan war

  1. #551
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2021
    Last Online
    09-14-2021 @ 08:34 PM
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Caveman
    Ethnicity
    Bosnian
    Country
    Bosnia
    Y-DNA
    I2a1
    Taxonomy
    Dinarid
    Politics
    Kratocracy
    Religion
    Islam
    Relationship Status
    Single
    Gender
    Posts
    333
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 240
    Given: 332

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    EDIT: Double post
    Last edited by SneedsFeedNSeed; 08-26-2021 at 06:44 PM.

  2. #552
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2021
    Last Online
    09-14-2021 @ 08:34 PM
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Caveman
    Ethnicity
    Bosnian
    Country
    Bosnia
    Y-DNA
    I2a1
    Taxonomy
    Dinarid
    Politics
    Kratocracy
    Religion
    Islam
    Relationship Status
    Single
    Gender
    Posts
    333
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 240
    Given: 332

    3 Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Teutone View Post
    Taliban winning the meme war, westerners like to overcomplicate things without having any clear message.

  3. #553
    Veteran Member Apricity Funding Member
    "Friend of Apricity"

    Laly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Youkali
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Quintessential Western Euro
    Ethnicity
    Portuguese, Walloon, Flemish, Dutch, German, Luxembourgish, English
    Country
    European Union
    Politics
    Lazy housewife
    Hero
    Oblomov
    Religion
    oblomovchtchina
    Gender
    Posts
    3,466
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 5,918
    Given: 4,927

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SneedsFeedNSeed View Post
    Adultery was the point of the hadith you quoted. Adultery is ugly, it's not supposed to be beautified.
    You're stricter than us on adultery?
    What is the punishment for adultery in your countries?
    What is the punishment for it in the New Testament? "Jesus lets prostitutes go" - is that it? That's your "beautiful morality"?
    You have so much vitriol for us who follow God's laws unselfishly, you have so much to say against us(and it's not even potent, we can tell you're having an OCD sperg-fit), you are obsessed with us, the most hated to you - the people who say "we heard the Lord, whose past believers betrayed Him, so we promised Him our undying loyalty even if the world turns against us". And you hate us for that. But you slow-boiled yourself into legalizing and making apologetics for adultery because "Jesus was loving". Please, we all know the deal here, we all see what your "superior Judaeo-Christian values" brought about and how your daughter is a webcamera away from it and you can't do a thing about it in your country. And you don't tolerate any measures against it in other countries.
    Nigga you turned so many cheeks that now everyone's flipping through pages of cheeks on pornhub in HD.
    In this hadith, the woman is demonised, when the one, who feels the desire, is not denigrated. There’s no introspection required, no interiorisation of the sin. That’s why I find the hadith ugly.

    And yes, our ethics is much stricter on adultery, but Christianity is not a dîn like Islam.

    You don’t have to involve my daughter here. Anyway, she’s wonderful, beautiful, and intelligent. We are living turbulent times, but there’s still hope.

    Quote Originally Posted by SneedsFeedNSeed View Post
    Adam bears children in his womb in parallel? Interesting.
    Or if you're gonna say "no, I meant him ruling over her" - isn't it amazing that you define "a woman ruling over you" is suffering? lol
    So you basically concede the point that you think it was fair that God punished every single woman in history, by deflecting by saying that "He punished all men too through Adam".
    My entire point is He shouldn't be punishing every single human being for the sin of two - we don't believe He did that, but you do - you're entitled to your belief.
    And it's really interesting to see that you quoted an interpretation from 1988. That's "Christianity considering women equal since the dawn of time unlike Islam" - yeah, sure. "I rule over you - and that makes us equal".
    Where the hell are these modern word salads of explanations of yours when it comes to our scriptures? Then all of a sudden you take issue with synonyms and can't google for the life of you.
    Here is the parallel, both Adam and Eve have their share of suffering:

    16 To the woman he said,

    “I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
    with painful labor you will give birth to children.
    Your desire will be for your husband,
    and he will rule over you.”

    17 To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’

    “Cursed is the ground because of you;
    through painful toil you will eat food from it
    all the days of your life.
    18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
    and you will eat the plants of the field.
    19 By the sweat of your brow
    you will eat your food
    until you return to the ground,
    since from it you were taken;
    for dust you are
    and to dust you will return.”

    And well, Mulieris Dignitatem is part of the Magisterium and it states the right interpretation, for ex. concerning Gn 3,16.

    And Eve in the Old Testament is balanced with Mary in the New One, like as quoted already, the domination of man over woman, as a consequence of the original sin, not of God’s design, is balanced by the fact there’s no man or woman in the Christ. The redemption in the Christ restores the original equality between man and woman.

    Other passages from Mulieris Dignitatem:

    “The comparison Eve-Mary constantly recurs in the course of reflection on the deposit of faith received from divine Revelation. It is one of the themes frequently taken up by the Fathers, ecclesiastical writers and theologians.[35] As a rule, from this comparison there emerges at first sight a difference, a contrast. Eve, as "the mother of all the living" (Gen 3: 20), is the witness to the biblical "beginning", which contains the truth about the creation of man made in the image and likeness of God and the truth about original sin. Mary is the witness to the new "beginning" and the "new creation" (cf. 2 Cor 5:17), since she herself, as the first of the redeemed in salvation history, is "a new creation": she is "full of grace". It is difficult to grasp why the words of the Protoevangelium place such strong emphasis on the "woman", if it is not admitted that in her the new and definitive Covenant of God with humanity has its beginning, the Covenant in the redeeming blood of Christ. The Covenant begins with a woman, the "woman" of the Annunciation at Nazareth. Herein lies the absolute originality of the Gospel: many times in the Old Testament, in order to intervene in the history of his people, God addressed himself to women, as in the case of the mothers of Samuel and Samson. However, to make his Covenant with humanity, he addressed himself only to men: Noah, Abraham, and Moses. At the beginning of the New Covenant, which is to be eternal and irrevocable, there is a woman: the Virgin of Nazareth. It is a sign that points to the fact that "in Jesus Christ" "there is neither male nor female" (Gal 3:28). In Christ the mutual opposition between man and woman - which is the inheritance of original sin - is essentially overcome. "For you are all one in Jesus Christ", Saint Paul will write (ibid.).

    These words concern that original "unity of the two" which is linked with the creation of the human being as male and female, made in the image and likeness of God, and based on the model of that most perfect communion of Persons which is God himself. Saint Paul states that the mystery of man's redemption in Jesus Christ, the son of Mary, resumes and renews that which in the mystery of creation corresponded to the eternal design of God the Creator. Precisely for this reason, on the day of the creation of the human being as male and female "God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good" (Gen 1:31). The Redemption restores, in a sense, at its very root, the good that was essentially "diminished" by sin and its heritage in human history.

    https://www.vatican.va/content/john-...ignitatem.html

    Quote Originally Posted by SneedsFeedNSeed View Post
    And yet you still want women to submit to their husbands. And that's not demonizing, that's not sowing distrust in women or anything.
    No, there’s reciprocity. The text is about “mutual subjection out of reverence for Christ” (Eph. 5, 21) and the husband should “give himself up” for the woman, submitting himself then. (Eph. 5, 25).

    Quote Originally Posted by SneedsFeedNSeed View Post
    You know that you couldn't inherit property, go to school, get custody of your children, vote etc. until like 1850 in your country? Where did that come from? For 1800 years you had (what you think is)"muslim law" apparently.
    Now I'll play your feminist role: SUBMIT?! WOMEN SHOULD SUBMIT?! RAAAPE!
    And people wonder how the left took over - this is how, you sperg over minutiae, and your children learned that from you.
    The only people you will get angry with is us, for doing what God told both us and you to do.
    “You know that you couldn't inherit property, go to school, get custody of your children, vote etc. until like 1850 in your country?” All false. Girls could go to school. Women could get custody of their children. Women could inherit property. Laws or the custom varied over time in our countries. And it’s actually the Napoleonic Code, from 1804, that was overall detrimental to women, since from that moment, they enjoyed less rights than before. Also, nobody voted until not so long ago. And actually, it’s the leftists, anti-Christians, who really didn’t want women to vote, because they said “it would give more power to the Church”, as they claimed “women would vote under the influence of the priests”.

    Anyway, the laws we had are still better than a frozen Islamic law with gender inequality in matters of inheritance, marriage, testimony, etc.

    And actually, I have a book on women in the Crusades (La femme au temps des croisades, by the renowned historian Régine Pernoud, mentioning how free the Frankish women in the Orient were compared to the Muslim women. She mentions the very important and testimony of Usama ibn Mundiqh, a Muslim Syrian prince from the time of the Crusades, who was scandalised by their freedom.

    Here is an exerpt I found online concerning what Usama ibn Mundiqh said:



    https://books.google.be/books?
    id=uGWZ0I6aF7cC&pg=PA306&dq=usama+honour+frank+wom en&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiChrDNgNTyAhVE_aQKHa5ACM4 4ChDoATAGegQIBRAC#v=onepage&q=usama%20honour%20fra nk%20women&f=false

    Concerning girls’ education, there are some very famous stories. There’s the one of Abélard and Héloïse, in the XIIth century. Abélard was the private tutor of Héloïse and they are both great intellectuals.

    A beautiful XIXth century depiction of this amazing couple:



    Another famous episode is the creation of the boarding school for poor noble girls of Saint-Cyr, by Madame de Maintenon, in the XVIIth century. There is a nice film on it, Saint-Cyr:



    And for your information, still in the XVIIth century, there were about 20 schools for boys and 30 for girls in Brussels:


    https://popups.uliege.be/1370-2262/i...?id=876&file=1

    Quote Originally Posted by SneedsFeedNSeed View Post
    No, you don't get to invoke "cultural/historical contexts", you quoted a verse from the Qur'an whose context was about women in another state asking about if they are forbidden from having sex in some ways, because of what Jews were telling them, and God allowed them choice, but you completely ignored all of that to make your leftist shithole point - so no, you don't get it either now, I'll treat your entire Bible exactly the same as you treat our Qur'an and hadiths.
    Actually, the Bible doesn't even have an isnad chain, let alone a verified and sound one, there is nothing for you to compare your beliefs to mine with, but I'll humor you for this final post.
    The context you mention doesn’t change anything to the problematic generality of the verse. Also, it’s not my fault if the Quran is supposed to be the verbatim, uncreated word of God, which makes that Islam rejects real hermeneutics, contextualisation, that the interpretation is very limited, literal. You can’t publish a commentary of the Quran using the historical-critical method in Islamic countries, forbidden, lel. And according to most Western Islamologists, the hadiths and their isnads have no historicity.

    Look, this Muslim author is very embarrassed because of the lack of hermeneutics in Islam:



    https://books.google.be/books?id=Vns...page&q&f=false


    Quote Originally Posted by SneedsFeedNSeed View Post
    This is really the weakest point you're hitting on; you took umbrage with the wording of the hadiths, but here you allow for several passages in the Bible to be metaphorical. "shape of a devil" is not metaphorical, but "there is no more man or woman" is somehow. I can easily turn that into an endorsement of transexuality. But you don't do that to your own, because you want the Bible to be correct, you only play that game when it comes to our scriptures.
    Again, it’s not my fault if the reading of the Bible is very different from that of Islamic holy scriptures, if the nature of the texts is very different, if Islam rejects the historical-critical method.

    And even if “shape of a devil” is a metaphor, it’s very pejorative for the other, the woman, while the man is at fault, lusting. It’s just one element among so many extremely depreciative views on women in the Islamic holy scriptures.

    Other ex.:

    “Narrated `Abdullah bin `Umar:
    I heard the Prophet (ﷺ) saying. "Evil omen is in three things: The horse, the woman and the house."
    https://quranx.com/Hadith/Bukhari/US...52/Hadith-110/

    “Narrated Sahl bin Sa`d Saidi:
    Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said "If there is any evil omen in anything, then it is in the woman, the horse and the house."
    https://quranx.com/Hadith/Bukhari/US...52/Hadith-111/

    “Narrated `Aisha:
    The things which annul the prayers were mentioned before me. They said, "Prayer is annulled by a dog, a donkey and a woman (if they pass in front of the praying people)." I said, "You have made us (i.e. women) dogs. I saw the Prophet (ﷺ) praying while I used to lie in my bed between him and the Qibla. Whenever I was in need of something, I would slip away. for I disliked to face him."
    https://quranx.com/Hadith/Bukhari/US...-9/Hadith-490/

    “Narrated `Aisha:

    The things which annul prayer were mentioned before me (and those were): a dog, a donkey and a woman. I said, "You have compared us (women) to donkeys and dogs. By Allah! I saw the Prophet (ﷺ) praying while I used to lie in (my) bed between him and the Qibla. Whenever I was in need of something, I disliked to sit and trouble the Prophet. So, I would slip away by the side of his feet."
    https://quranx.com/Hadith/Bukhari/US...-9/Hadith-493/

    Quote Originally Posted by SneedsFeedNSeed View Post
    That document is shilling for the hadiths you criticized, look at this:
    [...]How often, in a similar way, the woman pays for her own sin (maybe it is she, in some cases, who is guilty of the "others's sin" - the sin of the man), but she alone pays and she pays all alone! [...]
    [...]Thus Jesus will say in the Sermon on the Mount: "Every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Mt 5:28). These words, addressed directly to man, show the fundamental truth of his responsibility vis-a-vis woman: her dignity, her motherhood, her vocation. But indirectly these words concern the woman. Christ did everything possible to ensure that - in the context of the customs and social relationships of that time - women would find in his teaching and actions their own subjectivity and dignity. On the basis of the eternal "unity of the two", this dignity directly depends on woman herself, as a subject responsible for herself, and at the same time it is "given as a task" to man.
    Does it hurt you that much to agree with us on anything at all? Even when your own pope tells you what we ourselves believe? Really??
    Big lol.

    The first quote is part of a passage commenting the story of the adultery woman. The passage lambasts the tendency men too often have, which consists in accusing vehemently women while they don’t consider their own vices and aren’t accused.

    The second quote just reminds that if Jesus mentions the responsibility of men lusting for women, it is as serious if women lust for men. Once again, it’s not like in the hadith where it’s not the one who lusts that is demonised, but the desired one, so there’s no interiorisation of the sin. It’s like if you feel something "wrong", the fault, the evil is projected on the other, it’s the other’s fault. It’s parallel to the “logic” according to which if women are raped, it’s necessarily because they are sluts, lel.

    Quote Originally Posted by SneedsFeedNSeed View Post
    It was never about "islam being backwards" - it's you, you can't accept that we believe that we shouldn't gawk at a woman, and it starts bothering you that we do something right, it starts itching like maggots in your diseased brain, you start obsessively thinking "how can I make this against women so I can attack them and their religion?".
    Be gay then, we won't stop you.
    “Muslim men shouldn’t gawk at a woman”, yet Muslim men are notoriously known as beasts perpetually in heat, who can’t control themselves in front of the ankle or the wrist of a woman. Muslim males are the ones who harass us in the streets. And that’s putting it mildly.

    By the way, I find it amusing your avatar represents a dude gawking at a woman, lel.

    Quote Originally Posted by SneedsFeedNSeed View Post
    Why did you cut it off there? Why didn't you show the rest of it?

    With regard to ‘azl (coitus interruptus), or withdrawing during intercourse, the correct scholarly view is that there is nothing wrong with it, because of the hadeeth of Jaabir (may Allaah be pleased with him): “We used to practise ‘azl at the time when the Qur’aan was being revealed” – i.e., at the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). If that action had been haraam, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) would have forbidden it. But the scholars say that one should not engage in ‘azl with a free woman except with her permission, because she has the right to have children. Moreover, withdrawing without her permission diminishes her pleasure, because the woman’s pleasure can only be completed after ejaculation. So not asking her permission causes her to lose out on pleasure and on the possibility of having children. Hence we state the condition that this may only be done with her permission.
    Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Uthaymeen, Fataawa Islamiyyah, vol. 3, p. 190.

    Slave women have no right to children nor pleasure - the master has to permit her that, whether it is from himself or from someone else. The free woman can reject sex if the man intends to pull out or just satisfy himself, and needs her approval for it.
    Why do you think it was also written that you are not allowed to have sex with the slave of someone else whom is legally married to you, without the consent of their owner? Because of the willingness to sex by the slave only comes from her owners?
    You have zero authority, and even less knowledge, and you thought yourself intelligent enough to comment on what we have over a millennium of scholarship studying - while you struggle with proving that cheating on your spouse should be punished.
    Summary:



    https://www.cambridge.org/core/journ...1C1ACA0CFA47FD

    Islam is a global, globalising ideology, codifying every single aspect of human life. And can you imagine that we have plenty of hadiths teaching what’s the right way to go to the toilet lol, but nothing opposed to non-consensual sex with a slave (btw, not only with slaves, as there’s paedophilia, for ex.), while it is more than implicitly legitimised, plenty of sayings tell slaves are lawful for sex with you? And in itself, evoking the notion of consent in such unequal relationship is hypocrisy. Islam is bogged down in abomination.

    Quote Originally Posted by SneedsFeedNSeed View Post
    But you know what's really fucked up? Nowhere in the Bible is any type of rape outlawed. And since you want to push it in this direction,

    Isaiah 13:13-16
    I will make the heavens tremble, and the earth will be shaken out of its place on that day when I, the Lord Almighty, show my anger. “The foreigners living in Babylon will run away to their homelands, scattering like deer escaping from hunters, like sheep without a shepherd. Anyone who is caught will be stabbed to death. While they look on helplessly, their babies will be battered to death, their houses will be looted, and their wives will be raped.”

    You believe that God said this? God caused this? Or did He lie?
    Was it good that His will was done?
    You have already been told about the articulation between the Old and the New Testament, but you don’t want to know. Anyway, what you quote does not constitute legal injunctions. Even for Jews, that not part of the law. And the law of the Old Testament is abrogated for Christians (cf. for ex. Paul’s letters).

    And no, I don’t think "God said this”.

    I believe, in what is stated in Verbum Domini:

    the word of God has been formulated in language and expression conditioned by various periods”.[146] Christianity, on the other hand, perceives in the words the Word himself, the Logos who displays his mystery through this complexity and the reality of human history.

    The “dark” passages of the Bible

    42. In discussing the relationship between the Old and the New Testaments, the Synod also considered those passages in the Bible which, due to the violence and immorality they occasionally contain, prove obscure and difficult. Here it must be remembered first and foremost that biblical revelation is deeply rooted in history. God’s plan is manifested progressively and it is accomplished slowly, in successive stages and despite human resistance. God chose a people and patiently worked to guide and educate them. Revelation is suited to the cultural and moral level of distant times and thus describes facts and customs, such as cheating and trickery, and acts of violence and massacre, without explicitly denouncing the immorality of such things. This can be explained by the historical context, yet it can cause the modern reader to be taken aback, especially if he or she fails to take account of the many “dark” deeds carried out down the centuries, and also in our own day. In the Old Testament, the preaching of the prophets vigorously challenged every kind of injustice and violence, whether collective or individual, and thus became God’s way of training his people in preparation for the Gospel. So it would be a mistake to neglect those passages of Scripture that strike us as problematic. Rather, we should be aware that the correct interpretation of these passages requires a degree of expertise, acquired through a training that interprets the texts in their historical-literary context and within the Christian perspective which has as its ultimate hermeneutical key “the Gospel and the new commandment of Jesus Christ brought about in the paschal mystery”.[140] I encourage scholars and pastors to help all the faithful to approach these passages through an interpretation which enables their meaning to emerge in the light of the mystery of Christ.

    https://www.vatican.va/content/bened...um-domini.html

    Dei Verbum also reminds us that the Bible has human authors and and we must question, investigate what they really wanted to mean, their language being conditioned by their culture:

    12. However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, (6) the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.

    To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to "literary forms." For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. (7) For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another.

    https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_...verbum_en.html


    Quote Originally Posted by SneedsFeedNSeed View Post
    An-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said:

    It should be noted that ash-Shaafa‘i and his companions said: It is recommended for the father or grandfather not to arrange a marriage for a virgin until she reaches the age of puberty and he seeks her consent, lest she find herself trapped in a marriage that she resents. What they said is not contrary to the hadeeth of ‘Aa’ishah, because what they meant is that he should not give her in marriage before puberty if there is no clear and real interest to be served by that for which there is the fear that it will be missed by delaying marriage, such as the story of ‘Aa’ishah. In that case (i.e., if there is a clear and real interest to be served) it is recommended not to miss the opportunity to marry that husband, because the father is enjoined to take care of his children’s interests, not to neglect them.

    End quote from Sharh Muslim, 9/206
    Are you kidding?? Now Islamic legal schools are “sects”, lel. No, it’s classic Islam. And how is that hadith supposed to disprove that Islam, the Quran, the hadiths, the fiqh condone paedophilia and forced marriages? In the hadith, there’s no prohibition, it’s “just” a recommendation for waiting for puberty, so that the girl may give her consent, and it’s balanced by another recommendation telling not to miss a good opportunity (subjective) to marry a prepubescent child without her consent. Big lel.

    Yet another classic Islamic law treaty:


    http://web.archive.org/web/200204291...ok_m.htm#m3.13

    Quote Originally Posted by SneedsFeedNSeed View Post
    There's no age limit in the Bible. You're in deep shit for disowning the Old Testament, not even it has a worded age limit, but now you have nothing whatsoever.
    We don’t need a book, we don’t need the Bible to establish the moral law, lel.

    Quote Originally Posted by SneedsFeedNSeed View Post
    The age of consent was 12 in Britain until 1875, in Portugal it was 12 at that time, in USA it was 10, in France it was 13, and Belgium had none at that time. Do you know why? Because they believed(and still people do) that Mary was 12 when she conceived Jesus. So you can suck it, rape-lover. Your religion allowed 1800 years of it and still exists in Christian countries outside of Europe - why don't they stop it if it's so Christian not to do that.

    For 1800 years the entire Christian world couldn't find any of your arguments in the Bible lol. The Bible and real Christianity(which is from that time) are one thing, your plastic soybeliefs only have a Christianity-logo slapped onto them. If I'd tell you to stop being a faggot, you'll get upset, like a little girl. So be one then.

    You can't have any more of my time. You're too stupid for it. Listen to your Bible a bit more when it says you should be quiet and learn. Or pretend like it doesn't apply to you like you do when it doesn't suit you.”
    The information you provide is, once more, false.

    According to the Napoleonic Code, from 1804, girls before 15 years old could not get married.

    The Code, as digitised by the National Library of France:


    https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bp...tem.texteImage

    And at that time, the Belgian territories were annexed by France, it was the French Empire, with the implementation of the Napoleonic Code. And when Belgium became independent, it kept the Napoleonic Code.

    And lel, why do you think we call the mother of God the “Virgin Mary”?

    It is actually late apocryphal texts (not part of the canon) that evoke Mary’s age.

    In The History of Joseph the Carpenter, Mary was 12 when she was betrothed to Joseph and 14 when she was pregnant with Jesus. And she is described as ever virgin, even when Joseph dies.




    https://archive.org/stream/JosephThe...enter_djvu.txt

    And in the other apocryphal text Infancy Gospel of James, Mary was 16 when she got pregnant, while she was still virgin.



    https://www.asu.edu/courses/rel376/t...ings/james.pdf

    We have the dogma of the perpetual virginity of Mary, the Aeiparthenos, according to which Mary never had any sexual intercourse.
    Last edited by Laly; 08-30-2021 at 05:53 PM.

  4. #554
    Veteran Member Apricity Funding Member
    "Friend of Apricity"

    Laly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Youkali
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Quintessential Western Euro
    Ethnicity
    Portuguese, Walloon, Flemish, Dutch, German, Luxembourgish, English
    Country
    European Union
    Politics
    Lazy housewife
    Hero
    Oblomov
    Religion
    oblomovchtchina
    Gender
    Posts
    3,466
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 5,918
    Given: 4,927

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Faklon View Post
    None of the passages you quote indicate that one can change Christian teachings to fit his own undefined spirit.

    Verbum Domini is a 2010 teaching and Origen is still heretic in the Eastern church because among else he said some bullshit that human souls are predefined and posses bodies.

    He was a "neo-Platonic" sophist who wanted to find a balance between Christianity and the pagan schools of Alexandria. He may be celebrated by varieties of modern Christians because they see him as the connecting link between Romantic antiquity and the modern church. A way to appeal to modern "intellectuals".

    The logos you spam is the Aristotelian concept that a human can think, can ask "why I exist?" and the answer for them (0.01% of the ancient Christians that had access to education) is Jesus. That's all there is.

    The notion of "spirited" beyond Christian laws is immoral and chaotic. Bet it's how every onlyfans slut who offers 0.001% of her earnings in charity feels.
    The passages I referred to in my previous response to you were meant to prove my point, including on the interpretation of Paul’s words being linked with the distinction between the interpretations of the Scriptures according to the Spirit and according to the letter, the latter having to be transcended.

    I never talked about “changing Christian teachings to fit their own undefined spirit.” lol. And my point was never about “changing Christian teachings”, but about the interpretation of the sacred Scriptures, especially in comparison with Islam. Within this scope, I had been mentioning some essential and abyssal differences between Islam and Christianity, concerning the modalities of the revelation and the interpretative methods implied.

    And yes, for ex., contrary to Islam, Christianity gives a real dignity to human conscience and intelligence/reason. I talked about “questioning [or investigating or interpreting] holy Scriptures, in the light of our conscience and of our reason” and in Fides et ratio, one can find almost exactly my words: “Revelation is a truth to be understood in the light of reason.”

    Verbum Domini states:

    Faith and reason in the approach to Scripture

    […]This far-sighted reflection enables us to see how a hermeneutical approach to sacred Scripture inevitably brings into play the proper relationship between faith and reason. Indeed, the secularized hermeneutic of sacred Scripture is the product of reason’s attempt structurally to exclude any possibility that God might enter into our lives and speak to us in human words. Here too, we need to urge a broadening of the scope of reason.[116] In applying methods of historical analysis, no criteria should be adopted which would rule out in advance God’s self-disclosure in human history. The unity of the two levels at work in the interpretation of sacred Scripture presupposes, in a word, the harmony of faith and reason. On the one hand, it calls for a faith which, by maintaining a proper relationship with right reason, never degenerates into fideism, which in the case of Scripture would end up in fundamentalism. On the other hand, it calls for a reason which, in its investigation of the historical elements present in the Bible, is marked by openness and does not reject a priori anything beyond its own terms of reference. In any case, the religion of the incarnate Logos can hardly fail to appear profoundly reasonable to anyone who sincerely seeks the truth and the ultimate meaning of his or her own life and history.

    https://www.vatican.va/content/bened...um-domini.html

    The passages of Verbum Domini on the danger of the fundamentalist, literalist reading is also important in this matter, as well as that on the historical-critical method.

    And all the encyclical Fides et ratio is about that question. Some excerpts:

    Spoiler!


    And if you had read the introduction to the quote I referred to concerning Origen, you would have understood that it’s actually a later medieval formulation of what Origen had developed. Because yes… it’s not only on modern Christians that he has influence.

    Ex.


    https://curate.nd.edu/show/d504rj45s6z


    https://books.google.be/books?id=oEH...20ages&f=false
    Last edited by Laly; 08-29-2021 at 10:04 PM.

  5. #555
    Veteran Member Apricity Funding Member
    "Friend of Apricity"


    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Last Online
    03-13-2024 @ 06:31 PM
    Location
    Helsinki
    Ethnicity
    Finnish
    Country
    Finland
    Y-DNA
    I1
    mtDNA
    H39
    Politics
    Ugly history as it is. Don't blame me.
    Gender
    Posts
    4,729
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 3,434
    Given: 1,436

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    Is this Biden? Nine people killed in the last Kabul strike, of them six children. Even Mafia tries to avoid killing children.

  6. #556
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Last Online
    12-07-2022 @ 08:35 AM
    Location
    Nevarro
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Mando'ade
    Ethnicity
    Mando'ade
    Ancestry
    Various Mandalorians and tuang
    Country
    Abkhazia
    Region
    Aboriginal
    Y-DNA
    J-L283 [Mandallian Giant] Proto Illyrian
    mtDNA
    Tuang C1B2
    Taxonomy
    Taxed, true mandalorians never removes their helmet
    Hero
    Mandalore the first, Han Yolo, Mr. T., Rodrigo Roa Duterte
    Religion
    The faith
    Relationship Status
    Single
    Gender
    Posts
    2,727
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 919
    Given: 5

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    Lol this was funny
    Xi and putin shaking hands but here it looks like Xi really didnt even want to shake his hand

Page 56 of 56 FirstFirst ... 6465253545556

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-06-2017, 12:29 PM
  2. Once Upon a Time in Afghanistan…
    By Onur in forum Race and Society
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 10-30-2012, 10:09 PM
  3. Soviet war in Afghanistan
    By Joe McCarthy in forum War & Military
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 03-11-2012, 03:41 PM
  4. Die Afghanistan-Lüge
    By The Lawspeaker in forum Deutschland
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-04-2011, 02:23 PM
  5. 15 Reasons Why We Can't Win in Afghanistan
    By European blood in forum Politics & Ideology
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-09-2011, 04:49 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •