You know you two, when you act like this it is a sign you have no further argument without conceding a point.

<---ok now I'm ready

Iamon lyme: Talking like V? I need some tiquila for that.

Iamon lyme: ?? What? .... straight?? Nahhhhhh

Iamon lyme: How dare you accuse me of being sensible!

Artful Dodger: [ PS....stop making sense. You're scaring me. ]

I have a deliciously delightful idea... let's both start talking like (V)

Artful Dodger: [ What???? Seriously???? Crap. There goes my day. PS....stop making sense. You're scaring me. ]

Huh? What? Are you implying that up until now I haven't been making sense?

Oh crap, your'e right again! My identity is supposed to be wild and impulsive, and yours the sensible one. However, as I am only a figment of your imagination I need not take any responsibility for anything I say, because anything I say is on you. Or Bush, take your pick.

PS, are you sure the conspiracy nuts are still at it? I don't want to keep this up if everyone has figured out I'm actually just me.

Iamon lyme: Beacuse the saving then was in their hands... the dual state of concious and unconscious, the sleeper must awaken!!

Iamon lyme: PS....stop making sense. You're scaring me.

Iamon lyme: What???? Seriously???? Crap. There goes my day.

mckinley: LOL Well, anyone who knows anything about Christianity can tell you (or the bank teller) that Christians aren't perfect.

If we were perfect we wouldn't need to be forgiven for anything. And Christ himself had a clever reply to his critics when they accused him of socializing with sinners. He said he came to save sinners, not the righteous... because the righteous don't need saving. Not only was that logical, but it had to sting the consciences of his critics... because even his critics knew they were not blameless and without sin.

I wouldn't worry over what the bank teller thought about it. For all you know the teller doesn't even know you, but if he/she does know you and condemns you for not being perfect, then he/she knows nothing about your faith.

Iamon lyme: It's a term that was created after.

Abrahamic religions (also Abrahamism) are the monotheistic faiths emphasizing and tracing their common origin to Abraham[1] or recognizing a spiritual tradition identified with him.[2][3][4] They are one of the major divisions in comparative religion, along with Indian religions (Dharmic), East Asian religions (Taoic) and Neopaganism. As of the early twenty-first century, it was estimated that 54% of the world's population (3.8 billion people) considered themselves adherents of the Abrahamic religions, about 30% of other religions, and 16% of no religion.[5][6] The Abrahamic religions originated in the Middle East.[7]

The largest Abrahamic religions are, in chronological order of founding, Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Baha'i Faith.

>>>>> Didn't realise the Baha'i was considered an Abrahamic rooted faith. Yet I admit I've not really read up on it.

Group Think Microchip technology is just around the corner!

(another utopian wetdream?)

Übergeek 바둑이: [ One thing is certain, Mohammad was a historical figure whose existence can be proven. ]

So?

[ All of the main characters of the Old Testament have no historicity to them. In other words, nobody can prove their existence beyond what is stated in the Old Testament. The same is true of Jesus. There is no proof of Jesus' existence outside the New Testament, and the Gospels date to about 75 to 120 AD depending on what scholars intepret as the original documents and oral tradition that they were based upon. ]

LOL (selective ignorance?) There is an abundance of historical documentation to prove otherwise. And please don't insult my intelligence by asking where... you have the same access to information as I do.

Übergeek 바둑이: [ Of course he is referring to Islam. No offense but denying that Islam is an Abrahamic religion is rather ignorant. ]

No offense taken. I've been called worse... but I'm not familiar with the term "Abrahamic religion". Abraham was an individual who had a relationship with God, which to my knowledge (or in my ignorance) was never characterized as Judiasm or Christianity or Islamic... because none of those religions yet existed.

The connection between Arabs and Jews is genetic. Abraham was the literal father of both. There is no genetic connection between Abraham and Islam, other than the fact that it was conceived and embraced by a distant offspring of Ishmael. Islam is a religion conceived by a dessert pirate (not my opinion, historical fact) who started off wanting to be accepted by the Jews, was rejected, and as they say the rest is history.

Iamon lyme: Wow... you've decided that an atheist speaks a certain way, that critique of history of the use of the Bible is illegal and against God!!!

"On other occasions you've spoken of God as an invention of man, to control people or simply make them behave themselves."

Be specific. As at certain times God has been used in various ways throughout history... as did the Gods that came before and after

"but that you just want to keep your undefined deity a secret."

If you really mean that, there is no point.. You should give up Christianity and go and worship.... http://kevinsmith.propworx.com/files/2010/10/pr016.jpg ....

Iamon lyme: More like Glenn Beck in his rewriting of American history lessons.

Iamon lyme: It's a quiz game show.

Iamon lyme:

> I can't assume the third Abrahamic religion he refers to is Islam, because there is no connection between Abraham and that religion except through the son of the woman who was not his wife. But it probably is the religion he is refering to.

Of course he is referring to Islam. No offense but denying that Islam is an Abrahamic religion is rather ignorant. All of the prophets of the Old Testament are also prophets to moslems, as is Jesus Christ. Scholars believe that the Old Testament refers to the descendants of Lot and his daughters as the ancestors of Arabs. More accurately, Arabs and Jews are Semitic peoples. If one goes back in time far enough, both people descend from migrations that occurred in Asia minor during the last ice age (between 25,000 and 11,000 years ago). Of course, that is older than the Old Testament's age of the world according to Genesis.

Historically, before Mohammad founded Islam, most Arabs were Christians and Jews. The religious change came with Mohammad, just as Christianity had its origins in Judaism as it existed at the time of Christ. People today look at Islamic law and think it is somehow different, but much of Islamic law is a reinstatement of laws in the Torah, plus the interpretations that Islamic scholars made of them.

One thing is certain, Mohammad was a historical figure whose existence can be proven. All of the main characters of the Old Testament have no historicity to them. In other words, nobody can prove their existence beyond what is stated in the Old Testament. The same is true of Jesus. There is no proof of Jesus' existence outside the New Testament, and the Gospels date to about 75 to 120 AD depending on what scholars intepret as the original documents and oral tradition that they were based upon.

In that sense Islam is more "historical". The person who originated the religion wrote his own book, and there is historical proof outside the religious books that form the basis of the religion. The Koran clearly states the Abrahamic origin of the religion. Some Christians refute that because they want to see themselves as entirely different from Moslems. This is not surprising considering the conflictive history between Christians and Moslems.

Artful Dodger: [ Maybe I'll takes a stab at the question just the same: "What is forbidden in all 3 Abraham based religions" ]

Is he saying there is only one common forbidden among the three?

The other puzzling thing is he talks about the Old Testament and New Testament as though they have nothing to do with one another... as though the two parts of the Bible have nothing to do with one another. Even orthodox Jews who do not recognise Yeshua as their messiah know the two are connected, even if they do not believe the New Testament to have any validity. But (V) talks about it as though they are two entirely different religions. I can't assume the third Abrahamic religion he refers to is Islam, because there is no connection between Abraham and that religion except through the son of the woman who was not his wife. But it probably is the religion he is refering to.



As the good book says... forever learning, but never coming to the knowledge of the truth.

(V): [ Right, they were not. It is not consistent with Christ's teachings... yet an eye for an eye is there in the Bible. Yes, I know it could be said that it is a phrase in the OT, and Christ is of the NT. ]

Not just a phrase, but as AD pointed out it was a way for people to deal with people who would harm other people. Disincentives for commiting crime does work... criminals are immoral, not stupid. Just like anyone else, if they feel it's not worth the effort then chances are they won't do it.

The New testament marks the beginning of the New covenent. Until Christ came along, God delt with the people as the people changed. It started with one simple rule, then the rules progressively became more complicated as the people became more unruly.

[ Yet the OT is part and is relied on to 'authorise' certain NT matters.. such as the coming of a Messiah, much regarding being 'gay' and the big argument over evolution. All gone with no OT. Which contains the oral history of the Jewish people, written down. Including their wars, some notable geographic events and massacres done by the Jews. .. The same God that Christ is of ordered, or did these massacres according to the OT. That cannot be denied as written.. debatable if it was actually 'God'. It might just have been their justification for it all. ]

Spoken like a true atheist. On other occasions you've spoken of God as an invention of man, to control people or simply make them behave themselves. Either you believe in some other sentient being with the power of a god, or you don't believe in any god or gods. You still haven't explained or demonstrated how it is you are not an atheist... nothing you have said indicates a belief in anything resembling a god or gods. If it's a secret you don't want to share, that's fine with me. I'll accept your belief in The Unknown and Unproclaimed God as proof of your not being an atheist. I'll assume you are not lying, but that you just want to keep your undefined deity a secret.

Your secret is safe with me. shhhhhhhhh.....

Iamon lyme: Jules used to be a master designer of complicated mazes and after years of making master mazes for the masses he has trouble both walking a straight line and talking one too!

Maybe I'll takes a stab at the question just the same: "What is forbidden in all 3 Abraham based religions"

Farting in public?

No. That wont' do. In churches we sit in pews.

Iamon lyme: Obama will say he was in Hawaii and there are no camels in Hawaii. Only whales and monkeys.

Artful Dodger: And... and what if the him and/or her person on the camel is NOT the owner of said preganat camel regardless of whether the person is pregnant or not? Huh? Yeah! What then?

Awww crap, now I'm starting to sound like (V)!

Is that what happened to him? I mean, was he okay until he started talking at this board?

Artful Dodger: GAzooKs, you're right! Double jeopardy... double the trouble for the unwary foot traveler.

But wait, what if the pregnant driver was texting or distracted by talking on a cell phone?! Legally speaking, would it still be considered Bush's fault by left leaning liberals and the mainstreaming media and Oprah and pregnant camels? Does Obama intend to avoid taking responsibilty for this as well?

Artful Dodger: If the driver is pregnant then she can't be held responsible for the accident due to hormonal changes etc. The pregnant camel isn't to blame either as it's not the camel's fault that the driver is full of hormones. Therefore it's the fault of the other driver unless she too is pregnant. In that case it falls under the legal "No Fault" jurisprudence. If for some reason there isn't full clarity as to the no fault fault, then Bush is to blame.

Iamon lyme:

Artful Dodger: Awww crap!

I think I pulled a tendon (and/or ligament) in my brain.

Iamon lyme: Ok. Suppose there is a pregnant camel and a pregnant driver?

Artful Dodger: Oh, well, that's a horse of a different color.

If the camel is pregnant then the charges are modified, because obviously the mother to be is having hormonal issues and cannot be held responsible for her actions, so in the case of no rider and/or non ownership the victim of said accident is fartfully out of luck.

However, in the case of a driver of a pregnant camel being directed by driver is said to be responsible for operating not only one, but two camels at the time of accident. So the victim has the choice of running over the driver with one camel of equal weight to camel pregnant with baby camel or two camels whose combined weight equals but shall exceed total weight of pregnant camel plus rider plus any and all other items having weight and are therefore subject to the laws of gravity.

Iamon lyme: What if the camel is pregnant?

Artful Dodger: [ (V): ??? ]

I'll interpret for you: If you were legally crossing or traveling upon a dirt path and a camel bearing a rider ran over you, you had the right to run over the passenger of said camel utilizing a camel of similiar size and weight to the camel the aforementioned passenger was in control of at the time of the accident.

Accidents involving camels not carrying riders are exempt from the eye for an eye statute but require restitution from owner of said camel. Camels whose ownership cannot be established or proven must be given to victim of accident to be property of victim, at which time aforementioned said camel of questionable ownership status must relinquish all rights and privileges afforded without exception to all and any camels not previously bound by terms of ownership and/or contract.

(V): ???

Artful Dodger: [ I speak flatulance! ]

Okay, but do you speak fluid flatulence? No no, I meant fluent flatulence!

I can fart in eleven different languages.

[ Not sure about Iamon lyme ]

I can flatulate with the best of them. Proving it is another matter.

Artful Dodger: That is an almost Heinlein style statement. But in that.. it was done to the letter. If someone did a hit and run and through not stopping, the victim incurred injury beyond the accident itself.. they were inflicted on the same injury and any subsequent delay in treatment..... In one universe that is.. no lawyers as well. Lawyers were wiped out some time in the past.

But back to.....

What is forbidden in all 3 Abraham based religions?

(V): I'm not saying it. It's the explanation I learned about that particular saying. It describes a principle of reciprocity. The punnishment ought to fit the crime. Jesus then came along and radicalized it!

Bwild: I speak flatulance! Not sure about Iamon lyme

Artful Dodger: No.. I'm just doing it in sections, doing it all in one leads to confusion and/or lots of presumptions on this board.

So, basically you are saying the phrase set limits on behaviour, and before that people were going to far, so much that compensation became revenge?

Like with the Jewish price taggers?

Iamon lyme: " man with flatulence,should not talk in circles!"

(V): as you know, Jesus corrected a lot of misunderstandings people had. That phrase first appeared in the Code of Hammurabi. In Jewish law it simply meant that adequate compensation should only be equal to the offense and no more (it was actually about limits.) It was not a literal statement.

Either way, you've strayed off the topic of Islam again.

Artful Dodger: Right, they were not. It is not consistent with Christ's teachings.

.. yet an eye for an eye is there in the Bible.

Yes, I know it could be said that it is a phrase in the OT, and Christ is of the NT. Yet the OT is part and is relied on to 'authorise' certain NT matters.. such as the coming of a Messiah, much regarding being 'gay' and the big argument over evolution.

All gone with no OT. Which contains the oral history of the Jewish people, written down. Including their wars, some notable geographic events and massacres done by the Jews.

.. The same God that Christ is of ordered, or did these massacres according to the OT.

That cannot be denied as written.. debatable if it was actually 'God'. It might just have been their justification for it all.

(V): They weren't loving their neighbors that's for sure. Their actions weren't consistent with the teachings of the Faith.

.. The terrorists that were Catholic and Protestant during the Northern Ireland troubles..

Were they Christian Art? Trying to be basic here!

Artful Dodger: Are they Christian in the acts they committed, or just calling themselves Christian?

Iamon lyme:

Artful Dodger: [ Stop it! Now you're sounding like me again ]

I'm done with that. But you reminded me of something... I've been toying with the idea of intentionally sounding like you, but then I'd have to wait until you tell me if the conspiracy nuts, er, I mean theorists, are at it again. I still haven't seen much evidence of that at this board, mostly some vague references that could as easily mean something else. Oh well, I'll take what I can get.

heh heh heh *fart* heh heh heh heh... *belch*

The Jawa Report: Perp Charged In Chicago Terror Bomb Plot, Abdel Daoud, a #Occupy & Obama Supporter http://shar.es/udNDZ via @sharethis

Iamon lyme: Stop it! Now you're sounding like me again and I'm getting confused. Or - I couldn't have said it better myself ;)