|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
posted April 25, 2009 12:52 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 00:54, 25 Apr 2009.
|
Quote:
Its not like he is understanding the bible mistakenly, Corribus.
The bible is quite categorical on the fact the sorcerors should be put to death.....But lets face it with optimism, it could be worse. He could suggest we stone everyone who works on saturdays to death.
You are perhaps not aware that those were commands to the nation of Israel under the Old Covenant.
These laws only applied to people within the borders of Israel. Israel did not go outside its borders looking for people violating these laws.
It is also true that EVERY Israelite vowed to keep theses laws. They had to repeat the laws and the penalties for breaking them. Any who broke the law was without excuse.
And alos Christians are not and never have been under the Old Covenant. Christianity was born on the day of Pentecost, after Jesus rose from the dead and ascended to heaven and began to pour out his Spirit to those who would receive it.
So no, God does not tell us to stone anyone.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 25, 2009 01:05 AM |
|
|
Quote:
You are perhaps not aware that those were commands to the nation of Israel under the Old Covenant.
"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."
2 Timothy 3:16-17
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted April 25, 2009 01:14 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 01:19, 25 Apr 2009.
|
Quote:
Quote:
You are perhaps not aware that those were commands to the nation of Israel under the Old Covenant.
"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."
2 Timothy 3:16-17
Yes, you are taking the New Testament verses out of context however. I can only hope it is out of ignorance of the Bible and not out of dishonesty.
Jesus himself said he came to establish the New Covenant. The Old Covenant laws are beneficial for study but the ceremonial laws and civil laws don't apply to Chrisitnity.
Christianity is not the nation of Israel.
The Old Covenant prophets predicted a time when the Old Covenant would be fulfilled and a new Covenant would be put in place. That Covenant is formed in Jesus.
Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Jer 31:31-34 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant ... this shall be the covenant that I will make ...I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.... And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
Under the New Covenant we recieve the Spirit as the prophet Joel also prophesied would happen in th New Covenant. (Joel 2:27-32)
Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Act 2:39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
There was an animal sacrifice system that was in place under the Old Covenant. The sacrifices pointed to the final sacrifice of Christ.
Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
Heb 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 25, 2009 01:25 AM |
|
|
"I have not come to abolish the laws or the prophets..."
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted April 25, 2009 01:28 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 01:31, 25 Apr 2009.
|
Quote:
"I have not come to abolish the laws or the prophets..."
Dishonest. You only did a partial quote.
Jesus fulfilled the Law (Old Covenant.)
Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Unfortuately you seem to be deliberate in taking verses out of context and clipping them to try to prove a contradiction that is not there. I wish I could say that I do not often encounter atheists who do this.
Jesus fulfiled, completed the Law. He was the final sacrifice of the Law. When he rose from the dead, ascended to heaven, and began to pour out his Spirit it was the beginning of a New Covenant.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 25, 2009 01:31 AM |
|
|
Yes, and he fulfilled the prophets. But the law can't really be "fulfilled" and abolished, though - it's the law.
For example, if a murderer kills someone and then is punished, the law against murder doesn't disappear.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted April 25, 2009 10:32 AM |
|
|
Quote:
look, no offense but to me that sounds like a case of ignorance is bliss. are you afraid to see the truth and flaws in a book you deem as "holy"? i may not claim any religion for myself but i'm also open minded enough that if someone had solid proof or could show me a flaw in my life or the way i was doing things then please. feel free.
I am not afraid to "see". I already know them. I am tired of the arrogant approach of people who consider me a blind follower, ignorant to obvious. I know the obvious, ok? I do not need people to remind me in every reigious discussion. Because it feels as if they treat me as some sort of idiot who needs his eyes to be opened to facts. It's annoying.
Quote:
i assume you're referring to those last quotes. what's not to get? what needs commenting? i'm not a bible buff and i get was was written there unless there's some sort of re-translation you have that makes it out to mean something entirely different.
Awww. Take Harry Potter. You see something dumb there. As I did in my HP thread. What do you do? Quote it entirely without commenting? NO! You put some sort of analysis there! Because quoting without commenting is pointless. I mean, I can read, and I can do it myself. However the thoughts... the posters' thoughts. Can't read them, so it would be best for him to share his opinion on the subject, not throw in a part of a book I already know.
See the difference?
Oh, and mvass: Jesus did not need to abolish or destroy anything. Because human made additions obviously weren't the law.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted April 25, 2009 11:19 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Jesus himself said he came to establish the New Covenant. The Old Covenant laws are beneficial for study but the ceremonial laws and civil laws don't apply to Chrisitnity.
The Old Covenant prophets predicted a time when the Old Covenant would be fulfilled and a new Covenant would be put in place. That Covenant is formed in Jesus.
It is so obvious, isn't it. Now at least. I wish they had known that sooner. A 1000 years after Jesus had formed the New Covenant, people still lived in a society based on those Old Covenant laws. In Europe.
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
Wolfsburg
Promising
Known Hero
... the Vampire Doc
|
|
posted April 25, 2009 05:20 PM |
|
|
@Elodin (Your turn! Sorry, bud, but you are probably going to be offended/pissed off with the following lines. I reckon your arguments want mostly to offer us all a safe haven and protect us from the fiery hell, by removing us from our daily apostasy. But I cant accept that very concept as true, thus rending it useless).
Quote:
Quote:
I expect a divine source of knowledge to be: first - unambiguous. (Clear and without an edge for misinterpretation). Second - it should cover all eventualities. 3 - no two principles should be contradictory.
The Bible is clear and without contradiction to me. The deep parts of the Bible can't be understood by everyone, it must be learned by revelation from God.
Thats a quite frequent statement, people say that the bible atrocities and innumerous contradictions are nothing of that, but a product of "flawed interpretation". Apparently your favorite card is to claim your opponents are unaware of the true majestic hidden interpretation of the bible, and any clear absurds we bring you from this "holy text" is simply refuted with the words "taken out of context". People read what they unconciously want to read, you are the living proof of that. You hear weak, impertinent comparisons between the OT and the actual reality in church (I've been there, I know), and you accept it without further questioning. But as soon as you hear well-presented criticism about the OT, its misteriously "taken out of context". Your favorite card. A futile attempt to make this book impervious to attacks. Good - rightful interpretation. Bad - Ignorant out-of-context claim. Right...
When a text within Leviticus points you should stone a false-virgin to death there is no error of interpretation here, Elodin. Its just your personal filter programmed to accept all information contained within the bible in the best possible way. Blocking further questioning. Making you protect yourself with unfounded claims of logical fallacy, such as "taking something out of context".
As a clear example, you just accepted the killing of "witches", as long as its in the context of old Israel. As if this would make this crime less repugnant. Forgetting too that this particular passage, together with a couple more, has motivated one of the most abominant women prosecution tragedies human-kind has ever seen, as the hammer of the witches was in full work.
When Vassilev quotes Timothy saying: "All scripture is god-breathen and its useful for teaching", there is no freaking way you can claim it to be out of context. The sentence is clear and unambiguous. If you defend bible as unambiguous, there is no possible other way you can interpret this sentece above. Unless you want to enlighten us with the other posible contexts here.
Quote:
Quote:
I basically think the bible, like the Quran and other holy books are but the attempt to emulate a supreme sense of morality.
It is quite obvious you have never seriously read the Bible.
You assume too much.
Quote:
Jesus specificly says not to be judgemental. To the meek and honest seeker he was gentle. To the hypocrits he spoke the truth with sternness.
God-forbid we being judgemental! We might end up questioning the legitimty of acts as despicable as ethnical cleansing within the OT.
Quote:
God did allow slavery in Israel at a point in time although he did so out of the hardness of th hearts of man. As is the reason he allows divorce.
Voltaire would say: "If you get people to believe in absurds, they will be soon able to commit atrocities"
Such as:
Quote:
Quote:
Unless you really mean stoning a woman to death 'cause she had sex before marriage is a perfectly valid rule, which I fail to archieve and therefore accept. Those are not words from a god, and even worse if they were.
No, those are the words of THE God. You want to make a god of your own and have him serve your desires and make him dance to your music.
Yes, my friend, my musical tastes exclude summary execution through stoning. Which makes me moraly superior to your god I might add.
Quote:
You don't like his principles. You want a god that bows to your thoughts.
Here you present us with an interesting syllogistic fallacy, typical of hardcore theists, called affirming the consequent:
A) People who do not understand god just want a god that does everything they want.
B) Wolfsburg "doesnt understand" god
C) Therefore Wolfsburg MUST want Magic-Man to do his every wish!
Not really. Besides being an oversimplification in itself, this is a bogus conclusion. I refute especificaly YOUR version of god because it is a bloodthirsty, infanticidal, genocidal, megalomaniacal, sexist entity. And not because it does not attend to my wishes.
Quote:
But people who were very much dedicated atheists murdered over 100 millino people in the past 100 years. That is just the major atheist tyrants.
Besides the fact of that count being an outright lie, Im not entering that childish discussion. As if you could point out the best religion by which one killed the less... Besides yours is certainly not the one in the bottom of the list.
Quote:
1Jn 3:15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.
1Jn 4:20 If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?
You see bible itself has a long story of fallacious conclusions. First of all an "affirming the consequent" followed by a fallacy of necessity.
I am a good person, Elodin. Even if you highly doubt it at the moment.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted April 25, 2009 06:24 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Thats a quite frequent statement, people say that the bible atrocities and innumerous contradictions are nothing of that, but a product of "flawed interpretation". Apparently your favorite card is to claim your opponents are unaware of the true majestic hidden interpretation of the bible, and any clear absurds we bring you from this "holy text" is simply refuted with the words "taken out of context".
The apparant "strategy" of the majority of atheists I have ever discussed religion with is to make up a bunch of false statements and misquote/take passages out of context.
I already showed that was being done in this thread and there are numerous examplse of this.
It seems many atheists are "anti-theist" rather tan simply not believing in God. They have totally closed minds.
Quote:
People read what they unconciously want to read, you are the living proof of that.
You sir are lying.
I have spent many years studying the Bible. I read it with a desire to know the truth. It is evident from your posts that you are ignorant of the teachings and content of the Bible. You have yet to prove that you can discuss the contents of the Bbile with any intelligence or demonstrate any knowledge of th content.
Quote:
You hear weak, impertinent comparisons between the OT and the actual reality in church (I've been there, I know), and you accept it without further questioning.
Another false statement. I am not of the same denomination as my parents. My parents were not happy when I left the denomination I was brought up in. I follow the truth where it leads me.
As I said, I have studied the Bible for many years and desire to know the truth. You apparnetly have no desire to know the truth. You seem to made up your mind and closed it tight. You appear to "get off" on bashing the Bible and condemning and bashing religious people.
Quote:
When a text within Leviticus points you should stone a false-virgin to death there is no error of interpretation here, Elodin.
First, I addressed the issue of premaritial sex already. Please go back and read my prior post. I did not say it was taken out of context as you falsely claim.
No one was forced to live in Israel and everyone knew the law from childhood. Anyone who broke the law knew the resulting penalty. Isrealites did not go out of the country seeking to find people who had had premarital sex.
Quote:
As a clear example, you just accepted the killing of "witches", as long as its in the context of old Israel. As if this would make this crime less repugnant. Forgetting too that this particular passage, together with a couple more, has motivated one of the most abominant women prosecution tragedies human-kind has ever seen, as the hammer of the witches was in full work.
No one was forced to live in Israel. All Israelites vowed to keep the law. If a person wanted to be a witch they should have left Israel insted of lying and continuing to practice witchcraft.
Jesus Christ never authorized his followers to kill anyone. There is no civil penalty for sin in the New Covenant. I can not help what someone pretending to be a Christin did. The Bible says no murderer is a Christian. In fact if you so much as harbor hate in your heart you don't have Jesus living there and you are not a Christian.
1Jn 3:15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.
2Co 11:13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
2Co 11:14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
Mat 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Evil pretends to be good. Don't blame good for what evil does.
Quote:
When Vassilev quotes Timothy saying: "All scripture is god-breathen and its useful for teaching", there is no freaking way you can claim it to be out of context.
Except that he highlights the word "all", trying to say that the Old Covenant was still in effet.
Again, atheists I engage in discussions with often take verses out of context and clip verses as he did to try to produce contradictions where none exist. I have yet to meet an atheist who has enough knowlede of the Bible to discuss it with intelligence.
Quote:
Not really. Besides being an oversimplification in itself, this is a bogus conclusion. I refute especificaly YOUR version of god because it is a bloodthirsty, infanticidal, genocidal, megalomaniacal, sexist entity. And not because it does not attend to my wishes.
No, God is not bloodthirsty. He himself becaame a man and let his creaures torture him to death.
God is the judge of the world. He judges and has the right to judge. You as a man judge him dispite your extremely limited and distorted view of reality.
God created the genders as equals but with different biological, social, and spiritual roles. Is a woman superior to a man because she bears the children? Are you saying women are superior?
Do you claim leaders are superior to their followers? You you are saying the leader of your country is superior to you? Such reasoning is silly.
Jesus said leaders are to serve their followers. A husband is be a leader of his wife, not lord over her.
Joh 10:11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.
Mar 10:42 But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them.
Mar 10:43 But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister:
Mar 10:44 And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all.
Mar 10:45 For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
Quote:
Besides the fact of that count being an outright lie, Im not entering that childish discussion. As if you could point out the best religion by which one killed the less... Besides yours is certainly not the one in the bottom of the list.
It is amazing that atheists desire to attribute evey death cause by anyone claiming to be a Christian to Christianity but refuse to acknowledge the extreme number of murders that atheist tyrants have committeed. And as I showed, no true Christian has murdered anyone. But true atheist major tyrants have slaughtered well over 100 million in the past century alone.
http://atheisticviolence.wordpress.com/2007/12/04/atheism-not-religion-is-the-force-behind-the-mass-murders-of-history/
http://freedomdefender.blogspot.com/2005/05/atrocities-of-atheism-episode-i.html
Some atheists have a great zeal for atheism and atheism is indeed a religion to them and they wish to impose it on eveyone.
Quote:
Atheistic Governments (Communism) have been responsible for up to 259 Million murders accros the globe, from 1900 to the year 1987 alone. Up to 126 Million of those innocent victims were at the hands of the Russian Atheistic Government. Second largest Militant Atheistic state is Communist China, murdering up to 114 Million people (most from multiple religions & religious movements). The Atheists of Vietnam, North Korea and Cambodia (Pol Pot) all have murdered over 3 Million people each between 1900-1987. Atheistic Governments (Communism) have had the bloodiest government ideology responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths in the 20th Century. Atheistic Communism "was a nightmare which promised equality and justice, but which brought only bloodshed, death, torture and fear".
Quote:
You see bible itself has a long story of fallacious conclusions. First of all an "affirming the consequent" followed by a fallacy of necessity.
No. Not everyone who claims to be a Christian is. There are wolves in sheeps clothing. Do not attribute to the sheep the actions of the wolves.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted April 25, 2009 06:35 PM |
|
|
Wolfsburg, let me answer instead of Elodin, who is definitely more of a theist than me.
First of all, there are many approaches to religion. You may consider Bible as a word of God as a theist, and I do, but you mustn't forget the Bible isn't "made by God". It did not descend on a cloud from the sky; it's a human interpretation, more or less.
Thus, it can't be perfect, given the time and place of creation. The culture differences.
What Mvass quoted, I consider true - for the Bible. But what is Bible and what is not? Should we decide? Unfortunately, we do, or at least, we did. There are numerous Apocrypha that the Church declared false; Those are not a part of Bible anymore. because of "unknown" or "uncertain" origin. So you see - what we see today has been carefully picked through the ages. I am not for some weird conspiracy theory here, I hate those - but it's a FACT that people "decided" on what is Bible and what is not.
So if they did, how the heck can I know what's good and what's false?
You wont find the "absolute morals" in Bible now; even if in its true form, it would be like that, because of problems with the history of Bible (Church deciding what's good and what's not, problems with origins of many texts; Genesis, for instance). That's why - for every person who wants to be a Christian, but not a blind follower - you HAVE to find some sort of a golden middle. I already explained what mine is.
Elodin will probably defend the Bible as a "whole", but even for an extreme theist, it's difficult to accept such a point when you clearly see that Vatican decided what's false and what's true on whatever basis throughout the ages.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 25, 2009 07:07 PM |
|
|
Quote:
What Mvass quoted, I consider true - for the Bible. But what is Bible and what is not? Should we decide? Unfortunately, we do, or at least, we did. There are numerous Apocrypha that the Church declared false; Those are not a part of Bible anymore. because of "unknown" or "uncertain" origin. So you see - what we see today has been carefully picked through the ages. I am not for some weird conspiracy theory here, I hate those - but it's a FACT that people "decided" on what is Bible and what is not.
So how do you pick which parts of the Bible to follow and which to throw out? That opens the door to a lot of questions.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted April 25, 2009 07:12 PM |
|
|
Already explained. I follow Jesus' teachings. What doesn't fit must go. It's not convenience: it's a realistic approach (well, at least to me.)
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 25, 2009 07:19 PM |
|
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted April 25, 2009 07:45 PM |
|
|
The chances are smaller since there are 4 of them.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
Wolfsburg
Promising
Known Hero
... the Vampire Doc
|
|
posted April 25, 2009 07:48 PM |
|
|
Doomforge, I feel your vision of theism much more adequate. Reasonable questioning is always a virtue I deeply respect. I dindt have the time so far to answer your posts in this thread, but from what I heard so far you and I are not as far split apart as me and Elodin.
I am sure that although silently you much likely disagree with Elodin, that an awful act such as infanticide can be acceptable if found within "an adequate context".
It cannot. Possibly one of the reasons you reject the OT. A position which I would most certainly adhere to if I would be a cristian theist. The OT is the product of the conjunction of fears of bronze age desert thugs.
And no Elodin. You can further especulate how ignorant I am on the bible's content, but Im certainly not engaging in discussion around it with you. If you claim the bible to be the living word of god you will not allow a single flaw to be pointed out of it. You will defend the most awful pieces of text with teeth and nails against any counter argument. YOU HAVE TO. Otherwise, a single flaw will make the whole God's word theory colapse. I mean you have found yourself justification for the most spitable acts known to mankind, what other possible argument would be strong enough evidence to push you a single step back?
Answer: Nothing. If god would have sent Joshua on a raping fever and have all of the 12 year olds under Ai's reingn fckd, you would endorse it with some "contextualized" excuse. You see this is a pointless discussion thats only going to hurt you?
Chinese and russian governaments didn't kill people in the name of atheism. Thats one more of the unending stream of logical fallacies of your kind. This one is called correlation-causation falacy.
A) The two aforementioned communist governaments killed millions of innocent people.
B) Their leaders happened to be atheists.
C) Therefore atheism causes suffering, death and mass murdering.
My turn now!
A) Hitler and Stalin killed together aroun 27 million innocent people
B) Hitler and Stalin both had ridiculous mustaches
C) Having ridiculous mustaches turns normal people into bloodthirsty dictators
Does the correlation really indicates causation?
Bogus enough for you to visualize the absurdity of your argument?
On the other hand, catholics have killed specifically in the name of the cristian god. And even assuming those were bad wolves hidden in sheeps fleece, its still a fact that the bible verses were used to endorse their actions.
This discussion here is particularly pointless. Im not going to sit here and point all massacres promoted by the catholic church. Its pointless and presents nothing to invalidate the fact that YOU are a good individual independent of what THOSE religious zealots were. Just as MUCH as I am a good person independent of what STALIN was.
I just recommend you not to judge me as an ignorant, converting-freak, theist-hating unbeliever. You would be wrong in all those hypothesis except the last one.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted April 25, 2009 09:37 PM |
|
|
Seems to me some people need to ask themselves whether they have a problem with the existence of God itself, or the Old testament and Catholic history.
Because in my opinion Catholic history has as much to do with the existence of God as funny moustache have to do with dictatorship.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Lord_Woock
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Daddy Cool with a $90 smile
|
|
posted April 25, 2009 09:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Catholic history has as much to do with the existence of God as funny moustache have to do with dictatorship.
[/thread]
____________
Yolk and God bless.
---
My buddy's doing a webcomic and would certainly appreciate it if you checked it out!
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted April 25, 2009 10:12 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I mean you have found yourself justification for the most spitable acts known to mankind, what other possible argument would be strong enough evidence to push you a single step back?
No, atheists have, in the name of establishing an "religion-free utopia" committed, both in quantity and quality, the most dispicable acts known to mankind.
As I showed, no true Christian, a person who has been transformed, and follows the teachings of Christ, has ever committed such a thing.
Quote:
Answer: Nothing. If god would have sent Joshua on a raping fever and have all of the 12 year olds under Ai's reingn fckd, you would endorse it with some "contextualized" excuse. You see this is a pointless discussion thats only going to hurt you?
Never did God command anyone to rape anyone. In fact the civil penalty for rape was death.
If you are just going to make up stuff, then I say all atheists are rapists and you justify it in the name of survival of the fittest.
Quote:
Chinese and russian governaments didn't kill people in the name of atheism.
Sure they did. They killed in their pursuit of a "religion free utopia." Atheism was official policy of the state.
But Jesus Christ never authorized anyone to kill in his name. He said pray for them, not kill them. He said his kingdom is not of this world.
Mat 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
Joh 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
Israel in the Old Covenant time was a nation and did have to fight to protect itself. Also, God used Israel to judge surrounding nations and surrounding nations to judge Israel.
Quote:
On the other hand, catholics have killed specifically in the name of the cristian god. And even assuming those were bad wolves hidden in sheeps fleece, its still a fact that the bible verses were used to endorse their actions.
I am not Catholic and I have shown the Catholic church acted in opposition to the teachings of Christ.
Please show me the teaching of Christ that said for his church to raise an army, establish a political kingdom, to start a war, or to punish sin. The only thing the church is allowed to do to punish sin is to disfellowship a sinning believer who refuses to repent.
If someone was a wolf pretending to be a sheep he may have done aweful things. But none who was actually changed by Christ would be capable of doing such terrible things to others.
But Jesus said he is Lord only of those who follow his teachings.
Luk 6:46 And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted April 25, 2009 10:28 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Answer: Nothing. If god would have sent Joshua on a raping fever and have all of the 12 year olds under Ai's reingn fckd, you would endorse it with some "contextualized" excuse. You see this is a pointless discussion thats only going to hurt you?
Well even though (obviously) I agree with you here, sometimes the "context" is important.
Say, if you were aware that a baby was going to become a mass-murder (let's say for the sake of the argument, baby Hitler), would you kill him/her? Infanticide?
Of course this is only an example, which doesn't bear resemblance to anything in the Bible -- even though it is just to point out that context CAN sometimes be important, because as you have outlined it, I get the impression that it's completely worthless.
Quote:
Chinese and russian governaments didn't kill people in the name of atheism. Thats one more of the unending stream of logical fallacies of your kind. This one is called correlation-causation falacy.
A) The two aforementioned communist governaments killed millions of innocent people.
B) Their leaders happened to be atheists.
C) Therefore atheism causes suffering, death and mass murdering.
It's not just that. They burned churches and actually were AGAINST religion, not just 'ignoring' it or leaving it be.
Quote:
On the other hand, catholics have killed specifically in the name of the cristian god. And even assuming those were bad wolves hidden in sheeps fleece, its still a fact that the bible verses were used to endorse their actions.
But that is not the important thing one must realize -- it is whether they were motivated by something else. I.e: if they didn't have the Bible readily available to use it as an excuse, they could have come up with something else instead.
Although I fully agree that these "examples" and logical fallacies are utterly pointless in any discussion -- what do people expect from them? What kind of response? They want to kill the discussion as if it'll make them feel any better -- if it does, why start/post in the thread in the first place then?
Quote:
I just recommend you not to judge me as an ignorant, converting-freak, theist-hating unbeliever. You would be wrong in all those hypothesis except the last one.
You hate theists?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
