|
Post by awhina on Mar 24, 2017 10:04:24 GMT
They don't want to offend Muslims. That's why they do it. Even though ISIS is most definitely Islamic, they have to pretend like they're not. Nonsense. Despite the screaming publicity when IS attack white people most of the actual victims throughout the world are Muslims.
|
|
|
Post by awhina on Mar 24, 2017 10:14:08 GMT
Why would I need to adhere to an atheist site's view of Scripture? And just to be clear, you seem to be saying that I am playing fast and loose with Scripture ONLY because the link says I am correct? That's a retarded standard. To answer the question. I never follow out of context passages. For example what do you think the command is from God on the first one of the list? Did you even read it before you asked such a silly question? You don't need to adhere to an atheist site's view of scripture. But unless the article fabricated those quotations, then you should be agreeing with those examples without needing to be prompted, because it appears in a text that was divinely inspired by the putative creator of the universe. You clearly have enough sense from your secular education to know that it would not be acceptable to follow all of the rules posited in scripture. So you adhere to a watered down, neutered form of Christianity. I will partially concede to your point regarding the first example in that article; however the example still appears in a text that is reputed to be divinely inspired by God. The creator of the universe should never need to be second-guessed. And these sections are clearly intended to be seen as coming directly from the authority of God: "For any man who has a defect shall not approach: a man blind or lame, who has a marred face or any limb too long, a man who has a broken foot or broken hand, or is a hunchback or a dwarf, or a man who has a defect in his eye, or eczema or scab, or is a eunuch." "For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him." And Christians always say that context dictates whether they follow a particular passage, without ever elaborating on what the mitigating context is. Got any scary scriptures that are not from the Old Testament?
|
|
|
Post by awhina on Mar 24, 2017 10:17:33 GMT
tpfkar I think it goes back to the deity and his tenets and actions. If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die.That doesn't seem practical. We're talking about how people behave. What the founder(s) preached and how his earliest followers behaved are more fundamental questions. That is not a Christian passage or Christian law. It's Judaism.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Mar 24, 2017 11:24:31 GMT
How people behave is the measure. However, when comparing how founders behaved and how the deity behaved and taught, the deity clearly wins hands-down in terms of "fundamental questions". When using how people behave as a measure of the fundamental immorality of a faith, one has to look at how believers behaved over time, not just in the time of the founders or after the religion has been significantly tamed by society.
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2017 11:37:38 GMT
You don't need to adhere to an atheist site's view of scripture. But unless the article fabricated those quotations, then you should be agreeing with those examples without needing to be prompted, because it appears in a text that was divinely inspired by the putative creator of the universe. You clearly have enough sense from your secular education to know that it would not be acceptable to follow all of the rules posited in scripture. So you adhere to a watered down, neutered form of Christianity. I will partially concede to your point regarding the first example in that article; however the example still appears in a text that is reputed to be divinely inspired by God. The creator of the universe should never need to be second-guessed. And these sections are clearly intended to be seen as coming directly from the authority of God: "For any man who has a defect shall not approach: a man blind or lame, who has a marred face or any limb too long, a man who has a broken foot or broken hand, or is a hunchback or a dwarf, or a man who has a defect in his eye, or eczema or scab, or is a eunuch." "For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him." And Christians always say that context dictates whether they follow a particular passage, without ever elaborating on what the mitigating context is. Got any scary scriptures that are not from the Old Testament? skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/nt_list.html
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 24, 2017 11:41:35 GMT
You're changing your argument which started with the notion that all Muslims would do this.
They don't and it's important to stay focused on that retarded piece of bigotry.
But I'll go ahead and digress a little...
Let's not pretend that you would have issues with defending your ideals & culture. It is what you gripe about half the time. Unless you are saying that you would condemn you country and ideals if they lead to violence your outrage is hollow. I think your problem is simply with a religion doing it, but for many people, such as myself, my faith is far more important than the country I live in...& especially since it's president is an idiot.
My apologies then. I thought when you said this:"The Qur An has plenty of passages calling for death to unbelievers. ". you were implying the way of the Muslim would be the way of the so-called Islamic State. My apologies again. If you are against the deaths caused by your government against people that did nothing to them, I did not pick up on that. Ideals are bigger than religion and killing for them even moreso, so it's good that your ideals are such that you would never want to see harm done to others.
|
|
|
Post by awhina on Mar 24, 2017 11:44:17 GMT
Congratulations. Your American atheist source just won "bone-headed literalist of All Time".
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 24, 2017 11:50:37 GMT
Passages mean nothing without context and I have never seen quotes that factored that in.
At the end of the day, it makes no sense to think a non-believer of the religion would know more than the believer about their beliefs. This is something that theophobiacs never grasp and so they do it regardless of the religion.
Bottom line is that until the majority of Muslims adhere to the passages, then it is silly to encompass them all into the so-called Islamic State SOLELY on the basis the so-called Islamic State calling themselves that.
Are there passages that encourage peace
"it makes no sense to think a non-believer of the religion would know more than the believer about their beliefs." Yeah, that would be almost as bad as someone with no background in biology thinking he knows more than biologists about biology. Yep, keep that none note guitar playing. One day you will actually find some evidence of what you are accusing me of. We have never discussed biology because you don;t know anything about it apparently beyond insulting people that don;t subscribe to abiogenesis. One day your sentences will be considered facts and you will make millions seeling the smallest science book ever.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2017 12:05:45 GMT
Congratulations. Your American atheist source just won "bone-headed literalist of All Time". But then it's back to 'how do you determine which parts are to be taken literally, and which parts should be interpreted as apocryphal?'. It seems that Christians will take everything at face value up to the point where it is shown to be either inconsistent with other parts of the Bible, is indefensible by the standards of contemporary morals, or where the belief is incontrovertibly shown to be at odds with science. The creator of the universe should not have to be second-guessed, let alone provoke blood feuds between those who hold to competing interpretations.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2017 12:33:49 GMT
They don't want to offend Muslims. That's why they do it. Even though ISIS is most definitely Islamic, they have to pretend like they're not. Nonsense. Despite the screaming publicity when IS attack white people most of the actual victims throughout the world are Muslims. Yes, they attack the moderate Muslims who don't follow the Quran as strictly as they do. They're still Islamic. They're doing what their prophet did.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Mar 24, 2017 12:39:25 GMT
Except that it's not.
There is no literal interpretation of a small group taking over Islam and killing fellow Muslims and non-Muslims by means of suicidal bombers running over pedestrians with cars.
And there are some Muslims, much like Christians such as yourself, who play fast and loose with scripture, so that they can more conveniently accommodate their religion into their choice of lifestyle. I have never played fast and lose with Scripture. There's no reason to do that and I challenge to prove it.
In any event, it doesn't matter what Muslims do with their Scriptures as long as most of them, like Christians, are harmless to society at large.
The Qur An has plenty of passages calling for death to unbelievers. All of which are taken out of context. www.huffingtonpost.com/kabir-helminski/does-the-quran-really-adv_b_722114.html
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 24, 2017 12:41:41 GMT
Got any scary scriptures that are not from the Old Testament? The Book of Revelation is quite disturbing. As are Jesus' words (Matt 10:34) "Do not think I come to bring peace".
|
|
|
Post by Edward-Elizabeth-Hitler on Mar 24, 2017 12:50:08 GMT
They don't want to offend Muslims. That's why they do it. Even though ISIS is most definitely Islamic, they have to pretend like they're not. Nonsense. Despite the screaming publicity when IS attack white people most of the actual victims throughout the world are Muslims. You're absolutely right, most of IS's victims are Muslim. So that means you support military action against them and also you condemn the Westminster attack right?
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Mar 24, 2017 13:43:00 GMT
My apologies then. I thought when you said this:"The Qur An has plenty of passages calling for death to unbelievers. ". you were implying the way of the Muslim would be the way of the so-called Islamic State. My apologies again. If you are against the deaths caused by your government against people that did nothing to them, I did not pick up on that. Ideals are bigger than religion and killing for them even moreso, so it's good that your ideals are such that you would never want to see harm done to others. IT should be, but most muslims obviously don't kill people. Just as Christians and Jews should be killing gays and unruly kids. Just because you don't like what the scriptures of a religion says doesn't mean you can reject them. I didn't say I didn't want harm done to others. I am human, I have the same instincts as anyone else. If you hurt my family, I will want to hurt you back. My point is that I don't want to see people getting killed for what they think. Thoughts are not a crime.
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Mar 24, 2017 17:27:05 GMT
"it makes no sense to think a non-believer of the religion would know more than the believer about their beliefs." Yeah, that would be almost as bad as someone with no background in biology thinking he knows more than biologists about biology. Yep, keep that none note guitar playing. One day you will actually find some evidence of what you are accusing me of. We have never discussed biology because you don;t know anything about it apparently beyond insulting people that don;t subscribe to abiogenesis. One day your sentences will be considered facts and you will make millions seeling the smallest science book ever.
You are every bit as dishonest as Ada. You know damn well I've provided the evidence to you at least a half dozen times so you are a liar. Hey, we can even leave abiogenesis alone for awhile and go to your claims about common descent. So, let's have the journal and page number of the article that supports your position. But you are most definitely a laughable piece of shit when you accuse me of not knowing anything about a topic when you are the one who is an evasive little bitch.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 24, 2017 18:01:01 GMT
theoncomingstorm
Stop whining.
No matter what you change your name to, you are a moron.
For the life of me, I can't figure out why on earth your bloomers get wound up so badly over people who believe in God.
It's literally not that big of a deal. My views as God being a creator has not changed the advancement of anything one iota. Heck, I even managed to get good grades in all of my science classes without once having to have a conflict with my beliefs..Or at least not one that mattered since science is almost always primarily concerned with what is fact and I have never had a problem with facts. I definitely remeber having that conversation with you before, but you just ignore it and say "Derp, you;re stooped"
You lie every time you accuse me of not adhering to facts. You lie every time you dishonestly state I don't believe in evolution. A person who lies is a liar so, in short, you're a liar.
Perhaps you have dementia and are confusing me with someone else, but the only two thing you and I should have words on is things which are in no way proven. YOU are liar if you are claiming for one second that you have ever proven something that I categorically reject. It doesn't happen.
You simply have not done. You have rarely had a discussion with me at all that didn't involve insulting or lying about me first. It's OK, I'll live with the slander but it is strange behavior to get adjust because someone has the nerve to not agree with you. take a puff and chill out.
Hey, we can even leave abiogenesis alone for awhile and go to your claims about common descent.
What claims? I'm not the one claiming anything about common descent. I'm simply making fun of what other people are claiming about it and all of a sudden you're bring up Noah?
But you are most definitely a laughable piece of shit when you accuse me of not knowing anything about a topic when you are the one who is an evasive little bitch.
You are conflating a few things so let's clarify a bit.
1. Me not wanting to routinely talk to you is not being evasive, it's me not wanting to talk to you.
2. It's entirely possible you do know something, but that doesn't negate me knowing something. Based on you normal banter, I'm at least as smart as you even if you know more about sci-fi life beginnings.
My statements are largely based on what you tell me and what you tell me ain't jack.
Maybe one day you will decide that it is best to be a bit more cordial, but until that time, don't think for one second that there is any reason to think of you as intelligent, worth talking to or worth talking to.
I would prefer you continue to incorrectly think yourself better than me and move on like any other mean atheist out there. However, if that is not the way you want to do things, then be prepared to have tantrums again when I insult you.
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Mar 24, 2017 18:11:00 GMT
I find this habit of some media organisations extremely irritating.
I find all media organisations to be irritating, so I avoid them all. I'm not the kind of person who rams my own head against a brick wall then complains when I get a headache. Open your own mind to shit media = get ready for irritation!
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Mar 24, 2017 18:11:55 GMT
theoncomingstorm
Stop whining.
No matter what you change your name to, you are a moron.
For the life of me, I can't figure out why on earth your bloomers get wound up so badly over people who believe in God.
It's literally not that big of a deal. My views as God being a creator has not changed the advancement of anything one iota. Heck, I even managed to get good grades in all of my science classes without once having to have a conflict with my beliefs..Or at least not one that mattered since science is almost always primarily concerned with what is fact and I have never had a problem with facts. I definitely remeber having that conversation with you before, but you just ignore it and say "Derp, you;re stooped"
You lie every time you accuse me of not adhering to facts. You lie every time you dishonestly state I don't believe in evolution. A person who lies is a liar so, in short, you're a liar.
Perhaps you have dementia and are confusing me with someone else, but the only two thing you and I should have words on is things which are in no way proven. YOU are liar if you are claiming for one second that you have ever proven something that I categorically reject. It doesn't happen.
You simply have not done. You have rarely had a discussion with me at all that didn't involve insulting or lying about me first. It's OK, I'll live with the slander but it is strange behavior to get adjust because someone has the nerve to not agree with you. take a puff and chill out.
Hey, we can even leave abiogenesis alone for awhile and go to your claims about common descent.
What claims? I'm not the one claiming anything about common descent. I'm simply making fun of what other people are claiming about it and all of a sudden you're bring up Noah?
But you are most definitely a laughable piece of shit when you accuse me of not knowing anything about a topic when you are the one who is an evasive little bitch.
You are conflating a few things so let's clarify a bit.
1. Me not wanting to routinely talk to you is not being evasive, it's me not wanting to talk to you.
2. It's entirely possible you do know something, but that doesn't negate me knowing something. Based on you normal banter, I'm at least as smart as you even if you know more about sci-fi life beginnings.
My statements are largely based on what you tell me and what you tell me ain't jack.
Maybe one day you will decide that it is best to be a bit more cordial, but until that time, don't think for one second that there is any reason to think of you as intelligent, worth talking to or worth talking to.
I would prefer you continue to incorrectly think yourself better than me and move on like any other mean atheist out there. However, if that is not the way you want to do things, then be prepared to have tantrums again when I insult you.
Evasion noted.
|
|
|
Post by awhina on Mar 25, 2017 1:08:46 GMT
Congratulations. Your American atheist source just won "bone-headed literalist of All Time". But then it's back to 'how do you determine which parts are to be taken literally, and which parts should be interpreted as apocryphal?'. It seems that Christians will take everything at face value up to the point where it is shown to be either inconsistent with other parts of the Bible, is indefensible by the standards of contemporary morals, or where the belief is incontrovertibly shown to be at odds with science. The creator of the universe should not have to be second-guessed, let alone provoke blood feuds between those who hold to competing interpretations. You use sanctified common sense. You're wrong about what Christians do, and what parts they take literally. Christians are much less literal than atheists are.
|
|
|
Post by awhina on Mar 25, 2017 1:11:50 GMT
The Book of Revelation is quite disturbing. As are Jesus' words (Matt 10:34) "Do not think I come to bring peace". Jesus' words wrenched out of context. You're playing the trick of pretending a prediction is a commandment.
|
|