Religious Runaway Will Have Internet, Phone Usage Monitored | W...

pcfromfl wrote:

<quoted text>or maybe be in the movies

Im sure she has been in movies.The pastor keeps them in his library.

lostachild wrote:

<quoted text>
To ALL you "nay sayers" out there.... Have you heard about the story coming out of Arizona lately??! "Westernized Muslim Daughter Dies After Being Run Over By Father"... She "wasn’t living according to their traditional family values" according to the reports and the dad was "mad" because he felt she had become too "Westernized" --so HE RAN HER OVER WITH HIS CAR!!!! The girl was 20 years old and she was out innocently shopping with her boyfriend's mother when he ran both of them over in the parking lot.
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/US/westernized-musli...
This man had no previous history of mental illness or anything that they're aware of. It was all in the name of his religious beliefs according to family. I know these are two separate cases but do you STILL think Ms. Bary was being a "drama queen"??!! I think this shows her fear is justified and that the threats she felt - proven or not -- are VERY real!! Hopefully someone is now protecting Ms. Bary and we don't read about HER in the new next...!!!

I do agree with you. I have made a few posts on this thread in a humorous manor but I agree that if she is sent back to her family this could be fatal due to their muslim beliefs.

pcfromfl wrote:

<quoted text>youre probabley right i was thinking rafica does columbus its gotta be a acamdey award winner

At the very least a Noble peace prize.

Allah's word as revealed to Mohammed and written in the Koran is that the punishment for apostasy is death.
Under the Shariah law of Islam a father is not a murderer if he kills his own child for offending against Allah.
It seems pretty clear that Mister Bari would be a very bad Muslim if he did NOT kill Rifqa or arrange for her killing.
If he says that Rifqa will not be killed, do you think this is true, considering his failure to clear up doubts about his immigrant status?

Tom - Birmingham UK wrote:

Allah's word as revealed to Mohammed and written in the Koran is that the punishment for apostasy is death.
Under the Shariah law of Islam a father is not a murderer if he kills his own child for offending against Allah.
It seems pretty clear that Mister Bari would be a very bad Muslim if he did NOT kill Rifqa or arrange for her killing.
If he says that Rifqa will not be killed, do you think this is true, considering his failure to clear up doubts about his immigrant status?

True. And how many christians are bad parents for not killing their rebelious children? The bible says to take them to the edge of town and to stone them to death. Yet, the US has many christian parents and not a large amount of parents killing their kids. Would you call them bad christians? Seriously, I would like to know what you think.

Onetwo wrote:

<quoted text>
True. And how many christians are bad parents for not killing their rebelious children? The bible says to take them to the edge of town and to stone them to death. Yet, the US has many christian parents and not a large amount of parents killing their kids. Would you call them bad christians? Seriously, I would like to know what you think.

With very few exceptions Christians do not believe that the Bible is the literal word of God. Christians follow the teachings of Christ, one of which is to forgive sinners. As to stoning, Christ's attitude was "let him who is without sin cast the first stone". Taken together with Saint Augustine's concept of original sin, it would be difficult to find a stone thrower. For brevity I generalise at the risk of stereotyping, but the thinking of people in Christian churches has evolved over two millenia to prefer a path of enlightened social liberalism, whereas mainstream interpretations derived from the fundamental texts of Islam (Koran, hadiths, Sunna) remain largely indistinguishable from mores of 6th to 9th century Arabia.

Tom -Birmingham UK wrote:

<quoted text>
With very few exceptions Christians do not believe that the Bible is the literal word of God. Christians follow the teachings of Christ, one of which is to forgive sinners. As to stoning, Christ's attitude was "let him who is without sin cast the first stone". Taken together with Saint Augustine's concept of original sin, it would be difficult to find a stone thrower. For brevity I generalise at the risk of stereotyping, but the thinking of people in Christian churches has evolved over two millenia to prefer a path of enlightened social liberalism, whereas mainstream interpretations derived from the fundamental texts of Islam (Koran, hadiths, Sunna) remain largely indistinguishable from mores of 6th to 9th century Arabia.

Its all bunk.

Tom -Birmingham UK wrote:

<quoted text>
With very few exceptions Christians do not believe that the Bible is the literal word of God. Christians follow the teachings of Christ, one of which is to forgive sinners. As to stoning, Christ's attitude was "let him who is without sin cast the first stone". Taken together with Saint Augustine's concept of original sin, it would be difficult to find a stone thrower. For brevity I generalise at the risk of stereotyping, but the thinking of people in Christian churches has evolved over two millenia to prefer a path of enlightened social liberalism, whereas mainstream interpretations derived from the fundamental texts of Islam (Koran, hadiths, Sunna) remain largely indistinguishable from mores of 6th to 9th century Arabia.

But you see, this invalidates your point in this case. Both texts advise their followers to kill many people in many ways and for many reasons. Both.

If you want to point out the cultural differences in the regions where BOTH islam and christianity are followed in a fundamental or orthodox way, then you will be on to something. Pointing out violence in THEIR text as a basis of their violence in present day means you should understand more about what is written in the christian bible and how violence in their text does not necessarily beget violence in the followers...but then you will, again, invalidate your own argument there.

Onetwo wrote:

<quoted text>
But you see, this invalidates your point in this case. Both texts advise their followers to kill many people in many ways and for many reasons. Both.
If you want to point out the cultural differences in the regions where BOTH islam and christianity are followed in a fundamental or orthodox way, then you will be on to something. Pointing out violence in THEIR text as a basis of their violence in present day means you should understand more about what is written in the christian bible and how violence in their text does not necessarily beget violence in the followers...but then you will, again, invalidate your own argument there.

Kill them all. Jesus has his finger on the trigger of the gun pointed at your head!

Onetwo wrote:

<quoted text>
But you see, this invalidates your point in this case. Both texts advise their followers to kill many people in many ways and for many reasons. Both.
If you want to point out the cultural differences in the regions where BOTH islam and christianity are followed in a fundamental or orthodox way, then you will be on to something. Pointing out violence in THEIR text as a basis of their violence in present day means you should understand more about what is written in the christian bible and how violence in their text does not necessarily beget violence in the followers...but then you will, again, invalidate your own argument there.

It is the Muslims themselves who validate violent acts by reference to religious mandates in the Koran. I do not have to wonder or explain why they act violently. Muslims themselves willingly and proudly explain that they feel obliged to carry out certain acts because of their religious beliefs.

Islamic teaching is that the Koran is perfect, eternal and universal. It does not contain errors because it contains the words of Allah conveyed exactly by Gabriel to Mohammed. Thus no passage in the Koran is ever regarded as out-of-date (some passages are in disagreement and the priority is discussed by imams).

Christians DO NOT think that the Old Testament books of the Bible are a guide to correct behaviour. Muslims DO think that the whole of the Koran is a guide to correct behaviour.

Christians look upon the Bible in a way completely different to the way that Muslims look upon the Koran. Use of the Bible by Christians and use of the Koran by Muslims cannot be equated.

Onetwo wrote:

<quoted text>
But you see, this invalidates your point in this case. Both texts advise their followers to kill many people in many ways and for many reasons. Both.
If you want to point out the cultural differences in the regions where BOTH islam and christianity are followed in a fundamental or orthodox way, then you will be on to something. Pointing out violence in THEIR text as a basis of their violence in present day means you should understand more about what is written in the christian bible and how violence in their text does not necessarily beget violence in the followers...but then you will, again, invalidate your own argument there.

I think you misunderstood the reference to stoning. Christ saying "let him who is without sin cast the first stone" was a way of teaching people that stoning as a punishment is wrong, that everyone has sins and therefore should not be so eager to punish others. He wasn't telling the stone throwers to line up in reverse order of sinfulness, and he certainly was not condoning the act of stoning. After he talked to the crowd wanting to stone an adulteress, the crowd slunk away and he told the woman that he did not condemn her and that she should "go and sin no more".

Earlier this month (November 2009) in Wajid, Somalia, a judge working for the militant organisation Al-Shabab ordered the stoning of a 20 year old divorcee accused of adultery with an unmarried man. She was buried up to her waist in a public space and stoned to death in front of a crowd of 200 people.

Tom -Birmingham UK wrote:

<quoted text>
I think you misunderstood the reference to stoning. Christ saying "let him who is without sin cast the first stone" was a way of teaching people that stoning as a punishment is wrong, that everyone has sins and therefore should not be so eager to punish others. He wasn't telling the stone throwers to line up in reverse order of sinfulness, and he certainly was not condoning the act of stoning. After he talked to the crowd wanting to stone an adulteress, the crowd slunk away and he told the woman that he did not condemn her and that she should "go and sin no more".
Earlier this month (November 2009) in Wajid, Somalia, a judge working for the militant organisation Al-Shabab ordered the stoning of a 20 year old divorcee accused of adultery with an unmarried man. She was buried up to her waist in a public space and stoned to death in front of a crowd of 200 people.

How much did God make on the price of admission?

Tom -Birmingham UK wrote:

<quoted text>
I think you misunderstood the reference to stoning. Christ saying "let him who is without sin cast the first stone" was a way of teaching people that stoning as a punishment is wrong, that everyone has sins and therefore should not be so eager to punish others. He wasn't telling the stone throwers to line up in reverse order of sinfulness, and he certainly was not condoning the act of stoning. After he talked to the crowd wanting to stone an adulteress, the crowd slunk away and he told the woman that he did not condemn her and that she should "go and sin no more".
Earlier this month (November 2009) in Wajid, Somalia, a judge working for the militant organisation Al-Shabab ordered the stoning of a 20 year old divorcee accused of adultery with an unmarried man. She was buried up to her waist in a public space and stoned to death in front of a crowd of 200 people.

That sounds like they should good entertainment.They should do the same in columbus with the crimnals there.

unrepentant wrote:

<quoted text>
How much did God make on the price of admission?

10.00 for adults 5.00 for kids over 12 and kids under 12 are free

unrepentant wrote:

<quoted text>
How much did God make on the price of admission?

Oh yeah dont forget the seniors discount and kids eat free on tuesdays.

What God allows is different than what God causes. I don't confess to know much, but I know God is good.

Tom -Birmingham UK wrote:

<quoted text>
I think you misunderstood the reference to stoning. Christ saying "let him who is without sin cast the first stone" was a way of teaching people that stoning as a punishment is wrong, that everyone has sins and therefore should not be so eager to punish others.

So are you saying that you believe the passage in the bible about taking someone to the edge of town and stoning them means to throw accusations?

You can't have it both ways with the Old Testament. Either it is the literal word of god and the creation stories (both versions, yes there are two) the flood, the plagues are all real things that happened, or they are not and everything else in there should never be brought up in a christian church.

OneTwo
When it comes to discussing stone throwing you don't seem to understand plain English.

I'll try again. How about this:
stoning = bad, forgiveness = good.

The Old Testament is largely junk, and has been used, or should it be "mis-used", by all sorts of nuts. For example in the early Christian church the Old Testament rule (commandment) about "no graven images" was used by the iconoclasts as an excuse to riot and destroy any images of Christ and kill people in the process - not a "Christian" way to behave.

The Bible is not the literal word of God. It has been re-translated, re-edited and bowdlerised many times over the centuries. Very little factual matter remains, and what remains is obscure.

The "creation" myths are just that - myths. So called "intelligent design" is just a modern reworking of the myth.

The Bible stories are not histories i.e. correct narratives of real events. Because the stories may include mention of historical persons, places and events do not assume that the whole story is factual.

The Bible stories are allegorical i.e. they are extended metaphors designed to serve as illustrations when teaching people how they should behave, conveying ideas and principles by way of the characters and events in the stories. They are stories in the same way as Aesop's fables, each of which conveys a moral.

Not all truth is in the Bible: In the Bible not all is truth.

The Bible is a teaching aid, not a life manual.

One Two
My apologies, maybe you are not misunderstanding plain English. When you said:

"So are you saying that you believe the passage in the bible about taking someone to the edge of town and stoning them means to throw accusations?"

- I now realise that maybe you were taking the stone throwing to be a metaphor for making accusations. Perhaps you are right and the story is allegorical.

Tom -Birmingham UK wrote:

<quoted text>
With very few exceptions Christians do not believe that the Bible is the literal word of God.... but the thinking of people in Christian churches has evolved over two millenia to prefer a path of enlightened social liberalism, whereas mainstream interpretations derived from the fundamental texts of Islam (Koran, hadiths, Sunna) remain largely indistinguishable from mores of 6th to 9th century Arabia.

I don't know how it is in the UK, but over here, a good percentage of the Christian shouters in this case do in fact believe that the Bible is the literal word of God--and have some pretty major disagreements with enilightened social liberalism. In fact, they hate it. It is rather singular that among the growing list of "clergy" claiming to stand with Rifqa, most stand far afield from any mainstream protestent theology--and have a pretty profound tendency towards various cults of personality, or vanity pulpits.

By contrast, the Mosque with whom the Bary family is associated is pretty well known in Columbus for being moderate, with considerable outreach across various lines of belief. The Imam recently participated in an ecumenical discussion group in response to concerns about the Fort Hood shooting. I would say that this is a pretty typical sort of involvement for them.