blade
Junior Member
@blade
Posts: 2,005
Likes: 636
|
Post by blade on Apr 28, 2017 2:37:37 GMT
So if I kill 20 people in your name...that makes you evil? If I command/encourage/support you killing 20 people in my name, then I would be evil. and?
|
|
|
Post by johnblutarsky on Apr 28, 2017 2:47:49 GMT
If I command/encourage/support you killing 20 people in my name, then I would be evil. and? And.....nothing! What more do you want?
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Apr 28, 2017 2:51:57 GMT
If I command/encourage/support you killing 20 people in my name, then I would be evil. and? And the implication is that he suggests that the bible encourages people to kill. why do you have to have these things spelled out for you? I notice too you are not able to address my point.
|
|
blade
Junior Member
@blade
Posts: 2,005
Likes: 636
|
Post by blade on Apr 28, 2017 3:02:57 GMT
And.....nothing! What more do you want? So you didnt have a point?
|
|
|
Post by johnblutarsky on Apr 28, 2017 3:06:17 GMT
And.....nothing! What more do you want? So you didnt have a point? Seriously?
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Apr 28, 2017 3:10:03 GMT
And.....nothing! What more do you want? So you didnt have a point? I explained his point to you. You really are quite the intellectual aren't you?
|
|
|
Post by swimm on Apr 28, 2017 4:47:22 GMT
If it[the op]looks like a troll, walks like a troll, and talks like a troll.... This is a counter thread to my thread. "10 quran verses for understanding ISIS" OP is just a butt hurt Islamic apologist
|
|
|
Post by swimm on Apr 28, 2017 4:52:54 GMT
Hey guys, just a note... I made this thread in the politics forum mocking another user who did the same thing with Islam. These certainly weren't the best 10 I could find. I just found some random verses and put them as a top ten, just as the other user did. They apparently didn't get the point. So yeah, this thread was in politics. I wasn't expecting any deep discussions about religion. The thread was about ISIS and verses in the Quran they use to justify their actions. Not my fault you got triggered.
|
|
|
Post by swimm on Apr 28, 2017 4:55:18 GMT
BTW this is what the OP got triggered over
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Apr 28, 2017 9:16:42 GMT
Most of your quotes come from the "mythical period" of Torah\Old Testament - we are talking oral tradition dating from 1500-1000BC maybe even older. Different society, vastly different mentality. Believe me, most of these stories were pretty incomprehensible even to early Christians. 6 out of 10 does technically constitute "most", but "half" would be less misleading. And so what if it's the Old Testament? If it is part of the Bible, it is fair game. If it is somehow irrelevant, why is it in the Bible? If its inclusion can only serve to cause confusion amongst followers and critics alike, then isn't it better to snip it out? And you did not address the verses from the NT, either. People are inherently adaptable. Christian texts do not lend themselves well to adaptability at all, because whether you look at the OT or the NT, the rules are strict and set in stone. Paul does provide a bit of ecclecticism, eg. stating that foods are spiritually unclean only if you believe them to be, but for the most part the "adaptability" of Christianity is thanks only to the adaptability of its followers, who pick and choose what they want to follow. The fact that the Bible is thoroughly inconsistent makes it easier to interpret it any which way you want, but observe: By and large, Christians will not admit to the Bible having any inconsistencies at all, and they will also by and large say that only one interpretation is correct (but will disagree on what that interpretation is).
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Apr 28, 2017 9:18:40 GMT
In all honesty, none of the Abrahamic religions can really qualify as "religions of peace". Some pretty screwed up things have been done in the name of all of them, particularly Islam and Christianity. That's why I feel that discriminating against one while excusing the other is kind of ridiculous. So if I kill 20 people in your name...that makes you evil? If he commanded it, then yes.
|
|
blade
Junior Member
@blade
Posts: 2,005
Likes: 636
|
Post by blade on Apr 28, 2017 17:09:34 GMT
So you didnt have a point? Seriously? Yes seriously. I know what you think you're trying to say but you need to say it.
|
|
|
Post by swimm on Apr 28, 2017 19:26:05 GMT
Most of your quotes come from the "mythical period" of Torah\Old Testament - we are talking oral tradition dating from 1500-1000BC maybe even older. Different society, vastly different mentality. Believe me, most of these stories were pretty incomprehensible even to early Christians. 6 out of 10 does technically constitute "most", but "half" would be less misleading. And so what if it's the Old Testament? If it is part of the Bible, it is fair game. If it is somehow irrelevant, why is it in the Bible? If its inclusion can only serve to cause confusion amongst followers and critics alike, then isn't it better to snip it out? And you did not address the verses from the NT, either. People are inherently adaptable. Christian texts do not lend themselves well to adaptability at all, because whether you look at the OT or the NT, the rules are strict and set in stone. Paul does provide a bit of ecclecticism, eg. stating that foods are spiritually unclean only if you believe them to be, but for the most part the "adaptability" of Christianity is thanks only to the adaptability of its followers, who pick and choose what they want to follow. The fact that the Bible is thoroughly inconsistent makes it easier to interpret it any which way you want, but observe: By and large, Christians will not admit to the Bible having any inconsistencies at all, and they will also by and large say that only one interpretation is correct (but will disagree on what that interpretation is). The title says top 10 verses to understanding Christianity...Christianity is based off the NT. You would think the top ten verses would include scripture from Jesus.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Apr 28, 2017 19:30:08 GMT
It is not unusual at all for religion haters to understand the thing they hate based off the verses they don't like.
It is irrelevant whether they are offended by the verses in the first place and I certainly have learned to live quite happily with them in existence and that without ever feeling obligated to kill a sorceress.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 28, 2017 20:13:11 GMT
tpfkar It's not unusual at all for the rank apologists desperately want to bury the ugly. It's pretty obvious who the shamelessly projecting aggrieved are. poor, poor dears
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Apr 28, 2017 20:18:59 GMT
cupcakesAgreed. That's what I just said.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 28, 2017 20:27:10 GMT
tpfkar Yup, the one wailing about "haters". I never said anything other than it being an insult. That's why only the worst atheists, defined by their disdain for religion and religious folk, got the label.
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Apr 28, 2017 20:42:43 GMT
6 out of 10 does technically constitute "most", but "half" would be less misleading. And so what if it's the Old Testament? If it is part of the Bible, it is fair game. If it is somehow irrelevant, why is it in the Bible? If its inclusion can only serve to cause confusion amongst followers and critics alike, then isn't it better to snip it out? And you did not address the verses from the NT, either. People are inherently adaptable. Christian texts do not lend themselves well to adaptability at all, because whether you look at the OT or the NT, the rules are strict and set in stone. Paul does provide a bit of ecclecticism, eg. stating that foods are spiritually unclean only if you believe them to be, but for the most part the "adaptability" of Christianity is thanks only to the adaptability of its followers, who pick and choose what they want to follow. The fact that the Bible is thoroughly inconsistent makes it easier to interpret it any which way you want, but observe: By and large, Christians will not admit to the Bible having any inconsistencies at all, and they will also by and large say that only one interpretation is correct (but will disagree on what that interpretation is). The title says top 10 verses to understanding Christianity...Christianity is based off the NT. You would think the top ten verses would include scripture from Jesus. Timothy, Romans, Ephesians, Peter... Last I checked, those were found in the NT. At any rate, Christianity is every bit as much based on the OT. It is the bulk of the Bible, after all, and is also where the Ten Commandments are found. And as history shows us, religious doctrine is based 50/50 on the OT and NT. Christians pick and choose according to what is convenient. So do Muslims.
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Apr 28, 2017 21:03:10 GMT
Yes seriously. I know what you think you're trying to say but you need to say it. For crying out loud, you are the one who first drew the comparison. Your initial comparison gave the impression that you thought that while people have indeed killed in the name of God, God has never done so himself nor commanded anyone to do so. And the OT clearly says otherwise. Not only has God killed directly, he has also commanded the merciless slaughter of countless men, women and children. And no amount of frantic pointing to the NT will help you, because it's supposedly the same god as the OT, is it not?
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Apr 28, 2017 21:12:31 GMT
The title says top 10 verses to understanding Christianity...Christianity is based off the NT. You would think the top ten verses would include scripture from Jesus. Timothy, Romans, Ephesians, Peter... Last I checked, those were found in the NT. At any rate, Christianity is every bit as much based on the OT. It is the bulk of the Bible, after all, and is also where the Ten Commandments are found. And as history shows us, religious doctrine is based 50/50 on the OT and NT. Christians pick and choose according to what is convenient. So do Muslims. Of course it's based on the OT.
The NT didn't come along and pretend the OT didn't exist which is why it's annoying when Christians claim their beliefs aren't tied to it. if one follows Jesus, then the words in the OT are a primary reason they are doing so per Jesus' & Paul's copious instructions.
It's just that religion haters are even more ridiculous by pretending that Christians, half women, hate women or are out to kill stuff or that either Jews or Christians were fine with a Jewish guy's woman being raped and dismembered, or even came close to understanding why Christians aren't required to be citizens of a nation that has the nerve to have laws to govern themselves thousands of years ago. The former side is admittedly side is goofy, but the latter's views are clearly borderline retarded.
|
|