The Mosque Should Be Built! - Page 28

coadie · #**271** 08-31-2010, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Twisp

God is the same today, yesterday and forever. His word never changes. That covers everything. If He believe the Old Testament law was necessary at some point, He still believes that.

Therefore, He believe in sanctioning stoning and slavery. Pretty simple.

You need a good bible study. The wages of sin is death,
Romans 6:23.

Romans 8:1" There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus ...

We do still see slavery. Bondage is 90 days behind on mortgage and upside down on equity.

Walks_in_islam · #**272** 08-31-2010, 09:42 AM

wii is quite aware and is engaging in tail twisting. Net result of which was a few hours of welcomed silence while the twistee left to get some facts.

I believe you asked about Sharia law in another thread. See previous post about Texas law.

Your "spooky mosque" made Fox News. Congratulations on the wife-beater wearing rednecks who represent your local community (Murphysborough?) worldwide. You can be proud.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CC1

Apparently Walks in Islam is unaware of the New Testament and it's relationship to the Old Testament.

To be such a smart guy he is kind of missing the whole point of Christianity. He tries to act like Christians are living the Old Testament today which would be more like his "eye for an eye" religion.

Also love the way he totally ignores the barbarian ways of Islam. Hey walking man, how about explaining how Sharia law allows for a man to beat his wife for insubordination?

Walks_in_islam · #**273** 08-31-2010, 09:47 AM

Prax, I am aware of the noted source. <shakes head> It's pretty weak......."shall not multiply wives" crossed with "if you do take more than one wife treat them equally".......from the bible looks a lot like "if you take more than one wife you are required to treat them equally" and "it is not possible to treat them equally so be content with one" from the Quran.

Just sayin. Neither side has a strong argument for monagamy as a requirement though <grin> from a practical standpoint monagamy is much less complicated.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Praxeas

From the very beginning God created one woman for one man (see Genesis 1:27

2:21-25

).

Deuteronomy 17:17

explicitly instructed the king not to “multiply wives.”
Moses’ law said, the king “shall not multiply horses to himself… Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold” (Deuteronomy 17:16-17

).
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/121-...about-polygamy

Walks_in_islam · #**274** 08-31-2010, 09:50 AM

The same constitution written to protect society from the persecution of the church?

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheFritz

And yet, the Constitution is not the Word of God.

coadie · #**275** 08-31-2010, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheFritz

And yet, the Constitution is not the Word of God.

You are shifting the argument. This is not a constitutional issue.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2010/08/...d-zero-mosque/

We have a hoodlum developer that is doin a real estate deal.

Records showed El-Gamal also had trouble coming up with the $15,000 settlement reached in 2008, and had to pay interest . El-Gamal also has a number of other arrests on his record:

-In 1990, he was arrested in Nassau County and pled guilty to disorderly conduct.

-In 1992, he pled guilty in Nassau to DWI and paid a $350 fine.

-In 1993, he pled guilty in Nassau to attempted petit larceny and paid a $100 fine.

-In 1994, arrested for disorderly conduct in Manhattan.

-In 1998, there was another Manhattan disorderly conduct arrest.

-In 1999, yet another Manhattan disorderly conduct arrest.

A potential problem for the mosque developer is a deposition he gave in the assault case in October 2007. When asked if he was ever convicted or pled guilty to a crime, El-Gamal replied “no.”

Walks_in_islam · #**276** 08-31-2010, 11:32 AM

The issue of the constitution was actually raised by one of your fellows.

As to my personal feelings on this Mosque in this place as stated several days ago I do not believe this is the right thing to do - shifty characters or not. It is the fundamental intent / motive here that appears shifty.

Most of the rest of discussion from here is idle tail-twisting LOL

Quote:

Originally Posted by coadie

You are shifting the argument. This is not a constitutional issue.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2010/08/...d-zero-mosque/

We have a hoodlum developer that is doin a real estate deal.

Records showed El-Gamal also had trouble coming up with the $15,000 settlement reached in 2008, and had to pay interest . El-Gamal also has a number of other arrests on his record:

-In 1990, he was arrested in Nassau County and pled guilty to disorderly conduct.

-In 1992, he pled guilty in Nassau to DWI and paid a $350 fine.

-In 1993, he pled guilty in Nassau to attempted petit larceny and paid a $100 fine.

-In 1994, arrested for disorderly conduct in Manhattan.

-In 1998, there was another Manhattan disorderly conduct arrest.

-In 1999, yet another Manhattan disorderly conduct arrest.

A potential problem for the mosque developer is a deposition he gave in the assault case in October 2007. When asked if he was ever convicted or pled guilty to a crime, El-Gamal replied “no.”

Walks_in_islam · #**277** 08-31-2010, 11:41 AM

I guess they get to take the "biblical" track to the afterlife where there is, of course, no such opportunity to repent. From there take that up with the authors of your Bible and discuss it among yourselves.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pelathais

God is Most Merciful. However, what if they fail to "repent" to the satisfaction of the local judges?

Praxeas · #**278** 08-31-2010, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by corvet786c

The Mosque Should Not be Built because it is False Doctrine according to the Word of God.
Period.

So you want to disband our Democratic Republic and do what? Institute a Pentecostal Theocracy? Or just a Christianized Theocracy where any form of Christianity is allowed except Mormons and JWs?

Praxeas · #**279** 08-31-2010, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Prax, I am aware of the noted source. <shakes head> It's pretty weak......."shall not multiply wives" crossed with "if you do take more than one wife treat them equally".......from the bible looks a lot like "if you take more than one wife you are required to treat them equally" and "it is not possible to treat them equally so be content with one" from the Quran.

Just sayin. Neither side has a strong argument for monagamy as a requirement though <grin> from a practical standpoint monagamy is much less complicated.

Well we have the same things in the Quran.

The quran permits multiple wives
"Marry women of your choice, two, or three, or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one."
[Al-Qur’an 4:3]

The bible instructs us God's will is one man one wife. That is the point of what I posted.

The "source" is irrelevant. It's the scriptures that matter

I would say , with explanation, the bible just as equally teaches monogamy. Polygamy was a think of Kingship. Kings did this in all ancient cultures to preserve their lineage.,

Note, Abraham had one wife, period. It was only after she got desperate she persuaded her husband to take her servant as a concubine. Even then the thing distressed them, which leads to the last point you mentioned. More than one is too many :-)

Praxeas · #**280** 08-31-2010, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coadie

You are shifting the argument. This is not a constitutional issue.

He didn't switch it. He responded to someone else that said the Mosque should not be build because "the bi bul tells me soooooo"